HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 02 17 Springfield Refinement PlanMEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE OF REGULAR SESSION: February 17, 2010
TO: Springfield and Lane County Planning PLANNING COMMISSION
Commissions TRANSMITTAL
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Greg Mott
Linda Pauly
SUBJECT: Metro Plan Amendment: Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan LRP 2009-00014/
PA 09-6018 and Springfield Development Code Amendments LRP 2009-
00015/PA 09-6018
ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a public hearing to receive testimony on the proposed
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) and proposed Springfield Development Code
Amendments. The Planning Commissions are asked to forward recommendations to their
respective elected officials regarding co-adoption of a land use policy package that includes:
1. a parcel-specific plan diagram for Springfield (Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
Diagram);
2. selection of a preferred alternative for Springfield’s separate Urban Growth Boundary;
3. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan text and appendices: Residential Land Inventory and
Housing Needs Analysis, Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and
Economic Opportunities Analysis, Economic Development Objectives and Strategies;
4. amendments to the Springfield Development Code to implement Land Use Efficiency
Measures.
ISSUE: The City of Springfield and Lane County propose to:
1) Co-adopt amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan to implement 2007 Or Laws
Chapter 650 (HB 3337) and ORS 197.295 to 197.314, establishing a separate Springfield urban
growth boundary, demonstrating that Springfield's comprehensive plan provides sufficient
buildable lands within an urban growth boundary established pursuant to statewide planning
goals and rules to accommodate estimated needs for 20 years, and adopting related goals,
objectives, findings, policies, designations, measures, analyses, determinations, and inventories
for the metropolitan area east of Interstate Highway I-5. The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
(SRP) includes a site specific plan diagram and plan provisions applicable to Springfield only.
The SRP diagram and text supplements and supports the existing policies and provisions of the
Metro Plan.
2) Co-adopt amendments to the Springfield Development Code to implement Land Use
Efficiency Measures;
DISCUSSION: At the February 2, 2010 Joint Planning Commissions work session, staff
presented an overview of the proposed Metro Plan Amendment policy package and a CD
containing the proposals was distributed to the commissioners for review. Electronic copies of
the proposals were posted on the City’s web site on February 4, 2010 and were distributed to
the public at two open houses conducted in Springfield on February 4th and 5th. At the
February 17th Regular Session, Robert Parker from ECONorthwest (consultant to the City) will
present a summary of Springfield’s land studies and the applicable criteria. Springfield Planning
staff will present an overview of the SRP policy package. Springfield Public Works staff will
present information to compare the relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of alternative
UGB expansion areas with respect to the provision of public facilities and services needed to
urbanize alternative boundary locations.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Briefing Memo
Attachment 2: Comments received
Attachment 3: UGB Alternatives Analysis
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
To: Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions
From: Linda Pauly, Community Planning Supervisor
Date: February 17, 2010
Subject:
Metro Plan Amendment - Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan LRP 2009-00014
and Springfield Development Code Amendments LRP2009-00015, Lane CO file
number PA 09-6018
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary of the proposed land use policy
package of actions to be considered by the Planning Commissions. A more detailed summary
of the proposals is attached. The full proposal is included on the CD that was distributed at the
February 2, 2010 work session and is available on the City website at
http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/dsd/Planning/index.htm
Issue 1: Metro Plan Amendment – Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan LRP 2009-00014
Adoption of the proposed Metro Plan Amendment will create a new refinement plan of
the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan – the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP).
Adoption of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan will apply to land within the Eugene-
Springfield Metro urban area east of I-5.
Adoption of the proposed Metro Plan Amendment is the City of Springfield’s next step
towards meeting its obligation to carry out the mandate of 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650
(commonly referred to as HB 3337) requiring Springfield to separately establish its own
urban growth boundary pursuant to Statewide Land Use Planning Goals, statutes and
administrative rules.
Adoption of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan will establish a separate Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) for Springfield as required by ORS 197.304. The Springfield
UGB is required to provide a 20-year supply of land to meet the City’s projected needs,
pursuant to Statewide Land Use Planning Goals, statutes and administrative rules and
thus may include newly urbanizable lands. The Planning Commissions are asked to
review the UGB Alternatives Analysis and other relevant information in the record in
order to recommend a preferred alternative for Springfield’s UGB to the elected officials.
Adoption of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan will update the City’s residential,
commercial and industrial land inventories. The results of these recently completed land
studies provide the basis for forecasting Springfield’s land use needs for the plan period
2010-2030, pursuant to Statewide Land Use Planning Goals, statutes and administrative
rules.
Adoption of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan will establish refined plan designations
and policies applicable to future land uses within the Eugene-Springfield Metro urban
area east of I-5 that are consistent with the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan.
Attachment 1-1
The proposed adoption of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan includes several
components:
1. Adoption of a parcel-specific plan diagram with a separate urban growth boundary
(UGB) for Springfield – the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Diagram. In addition
to delineating a separate Springfield UGB, the parcel-specific plan diagram will provide:
A greater degree of specificity in the location of the UGB line as it includes or
crosses parcels of land. This will eliminate the need for a property owner to
submit a request to the City for a Formal Interpretation to determine the UGB
location.
A greater degree of specificity in boundaries between plan designation districts.
The plan designation(s) of each parcel will be clearly delineated. This will
eliminate the need for a property owner to submit a land use application or a
request to the City for a Formal Interpretation to determine district boundaries
that are currently shown more generally in the Metro Plan diagram.
Resolution of 297 instances where the plan designation of a parcel of land is not
consistent with the zoning. This will eliminate the need for a property owner to
submit a land use application to request resolution of a plan/zone conflict.
Designation of sufficient land to provide a 20-year supply to meet Springfield’s
needs pursuant to Statewide Land Use Planning Goals, statutes and
administrative rules. The Springfield UGB may or may not be expanded to
include newly urbanizable lands. The Planning Commissions are asked to
consider the testimony received, the UGB Alternatives Analysis and other
relevant information in the record in order to recommend a preferred alternative
for Springfield’s UGB to the elected officials.
2. Adoption of Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan text and appendices. The Springfield
2030 Refinement Plan articulates Springfield’s preferred future land use vision,
Springfield’s response to deficiencies identified in the land studies, and a
development/redevelopment implementation strategy to support incremental
achievement of that vision over the 20 year plan period. The SRP policies and
implementation actions lay foundation for future updates to Springfield’s neighborhood
refinement and specific area plans. The SRP contains four elements:
Urbanization Element
Land Use and Urban Design Element
Residential Land Element and Residential Land and Housing Element
Appendix: Springfield Residential Lands and Housing Needs Analysis. It is
important to note that the housing needs analysis indicates that Springfield has a
small overall surplus of residential land (59 acres).
The Low Density Residential designation has a surplus of approximately 72
gross acres.
The Medium Density Residential designation has a surplus of approximately 18
gross acres.
Attachment 1-2
The High Density Residential designation has a deficit of approximately 34 gross
acres.
The proposed SRP Metro Plan amendment addresses the High Density
Residential shortfall.
Economic Element and Economic Element Appendix: Springfield Commercial
and Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) Inventory and Economic Opportunities
Analysis. It is important to note that Springfield’s CIBL needs analysis assumes
that:
52% of new employment growth in Springfield will not require vacant land;
Springfield will be able to meet employment land needs on sites five acres and
smaller within the existing UGB, through redevelopment, infill development, and
employment uses on non-employment land (e.g., home occupations). One of the
City’s economic development strategies is to encourage redevelopment,
especially in Downtown and Glenwood. Springfield concludes that 187 industrial
sites and 340 commercial and mixed-use sites would redevelop to address land
needs over the 20-year period. In addition to this assumption about
redevelopment, Springfield assumes that all land needs on sites smaller than five
acres would be accommodated through redevelopment. This portion of
employment addresses the OAR 660-024-0050 requirements that the City
consider “land use efficiency measures” prior to expanding the UGB. Policies in
the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan will articulate the City’s strategies to
achieve this level of infill and redevelopment.
Springfield will need employment land with characteristics that cannot be found
within the existing UGB.
The employment land needs that may not be met within the UGB are for sites
five acres and larger.
The Economic Opportunities Analysis identifies six needed industrial sites on 450
acres and eleven needed commercial and mixed-use sites on about 190 acres to
meet the city’s economic development objectives over the plan period - a total of
17 sites with approximately 640 acres of industrial and other employment land on
sites five acres and larger that cannot be accommodated within the existing
UGB.
Springfield’s inventory lacks employment sites of sufficient size, location and
configuration to provide an adequate competitive supply of suitable land to
respond to economic development opportunities as they arise. Sites suitable for
commercial and industrial land uses (flat sites, frontage on arterials, access to
rail and freeways, separation from residential uses, etc.) are already developed
and/or designated for these uses.
The City currently has only one buildable site 20 acres or larger.
Attachment 1-3
Availability of sites 20 acres and larger is important for attracting or growing large
businesses, which are often traded-sector businesses. If the City does not have
these large sites, there is little chance that the City will attract these types of
businesses.
There are relatively few large sites (20 acres or larger) available near I-5
available for development in the Southern Willamette Valley and in fact no sites
with these characteristics in the Eugene-Springfield area.
Statewide Planning Goals, as set forth in Statewide Planning Goal 9 and the
administrative rule that implements Goal 9 (OAR 660-009) require:
Goal 9:
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of
economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of
Oregon’s citizens.
Goal 9 requires the City to have comprehensive plans and policies that
contribute to the state’s stable and healthy economy. Plans must be based on
inventories of areas suitable for increased economic growth and activity after
taking into consideration the health of the economic base; materials and energy
availability and cost; labor market factors; educational and technical training
programs; availability of key public facilities; necessary support facilities; curre
market forces; location relative to markets; availability of renewable and non-
renewable resources; availability of land; and pollution control requ
nt
irements.
Goal 9 requires the City to conduct an analysis of the community’s economic
patterns, potentialities, strengths, and deficiencies as they relate to state and
national trends and to prepare policies concerning economic opportunities in the
community. The Springfield Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands
Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis is designed to meet the
requirements of Goal 9 and the Goal 9 rule. The Land Conservation and
Development Commission adopted amendments to this administrative rule in
December 2005.1 Springfield’s analysis is designed to conform to the
requirements in OAR 660-009 as amended.
OAR 660-009-0015 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) requires the city to:
1. identify the major categories of industrial or other employment uses that
could reasonably be expected to locate or expand in the planning area
based on information about national, state, regional, county or local
trends;
2. identify the number of sites by type reasonably expected to be needed to
accommodate projected employment growth based on the site
characteristics typical of expected uses;
1 The amended OAR 660‐009, along with a Goal 9 Rule Fact Sheet, is available from the Oregon Department of
Land Conservation and Development at http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/econdev.shtml.
Attachment 1-4
3. include an inventory of vacant and developed lands within the planning
area designated for industrial or other employment use;
4. and estimate the types and amounts of industrial and other employment
uses likely to occur in the planning area.
OAR 660-009-0020 Industrial and Commercial Development requires Springfield
to develop commercial and industrial development policies based on the EOA.
Local comprehensive plans must state the overall objectives for economic
development in the planning area and identify categories or particular types of
industrial and other employment uses desired by the community. Local
comprehensive plans must also include policies that commit the city to designate
an adequate number of employment sites of suitable sizes, types and locations.
The plan must also include policies to provide necessary public facilities and
transportation facilities for the planning area. Cities within a Metropolitan
Planning Organization (which includes Springfield) must also adopt policies that
identify a competitive short-term supply of land for desired industrial and other
employment uses as an economic development objective.
OAR 660-009-0025 Designation of Lands for Industrial and Commercial Uses
requires Springfield to adopt measures to implement policies adopted pursuant to
OAR 660-009-0020. Appropriate implementation measures include amendments
to plan and zone map designations, land use regulations, public facility plans, and
transportation system plans. More specifically, plans must identify the approximate
number, acreage and characteristics of sites needed to accommodate industrial
and other employment uses to implement plan policies, and must designate
serviceable land suitable to meet identified site needs.
Plans for cities within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (which includes
Springfield) must also adopt policies relating to the short-term supply of land and
must designate suitable land to respond to economic development opportunities as
they arise.
Springfield’s Economic Opportunities Analysis includes an analysis of national,
state, regional, and county trends (EOA Chapter 3 and Appendix A) as well as the
20-year employment forecast that leads to identification of needed development
sites and a description of the types of sites that are needed to accommodate
industries that are likely to locate or expand in Springfield (EOA Chapter 4 and
Appendix B and C). It also includes an inventory of buildable commercial and
industrial land in Springfield (EOA Chapter 2). EOA Chapter 5 presents a
comparison of Springfield’s land supply and site needs and discusses the
implications of the Economic Opportunities Analysis.
Attachment 1-5
The work products of the CIBL study are the result of a rigorous public involvement
process that involved citizens, stakeholders, technical staff, representatives of
affected agencies, the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff and the City’s
consultant ECONorthwest conducted surveys, workshops, open houses, and an
extensive series of advisory committee meetings and work sessions to prepare and
refine the required land inventory, economic opportunity analysis and economic
development objectives and strategies.
Goal 9 requires the City to respond to prepare a comprehensive plan that responds
to the EOA. Plans must: 1) provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of
suitable sizes, types, locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial and
commercial uses consistent with plan policies; and 2) limit uses on or near sites
zoned for specific industrial and commercial uses to those which are compatible
with those uses.
On January 19, 2010 the Springfield City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-03
adopting the Springfield Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory,
Economic Opportunities Analysis and the Economic Development Objectives and
Implementation Strategies. Applicable criteria include 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650,
State Economic Development Planning Goals and Rules OAR 660-0015, OAR
660-009-0020, OAR 660-009-0025 as amended by LCDC in 2007, and applicable
comprehensive plan policies.
Issue 2: Springfield Development Code Amendments LRP 2009-00015 Land Use
Efficiency Measures Implementation Phase One
As directed by the City Council, Springfield intends to implement additional Land Use Efficiency
Measures identified through the Residential Land Study planning process that address identified
housing needs and deficiencies as well as housing affordability and choice consistent with
Statewide Planning Goal 10. While the City cannot force the market to build housing units, the
City is mandated by the state to designate land for the needed housing types in its
comprehensive plan. The City can also provide development incentives – regulatory and
monetary – to encourage the market to build needed housing types. Adoption of the proposed
Springfield Development Code (SDC) amendments will implement the first phase of this work
task. See Section D of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan policy package for more detailed
information about the Land Use Efficiency Measures implementation.
Overview of Proposed SDC Amendments
Section Proposed to
be Amended
Reason for Amendment
3.2-100 Adds Small Lot Residential District (SLR) to the base zoning district list
3.2-205 Establishes a minimum density of 6 dwelling units per net acre in the
LDR District
Attachment 1-6
7
Adds the SLR District description
Amends other residential district descriptions
3.2-210 Adds uses for the SLR District
3.2-215 Adds base zone development standards for the SLR District
3.3-825 References SDC residential densities for Future Development Plans in
the UF-10 Overlay District (see also 5-12-120/130)
4.7-140 Adds Type I design standards for duplexes on corner lots/parcels and
for certain duplex development in the MDR/HDR Districts
4.7-233 Adds a new Section with requirement for a mix of housing types in
SLR developments
5.4-100 Adds a Type I process to Table 5.4-1, Development Applications, for
duplex design standards
5.12-120 References SDC residential densities for Future Development Plans in
the land division process (see also 3.3-825)
5.12-130 Adds a condition of approval for recording a Future Development
Plans with the Plat (see also 3.3-825)
6.1-110 Adds/revises definitions pertaining to “dwellings” in support of the SLR
District
CONCLUSION/CONTINUATION OF HEARING
The Planning Commissions are asked to continue the hearing on March 16, 2010 to allow
additional oral and written testimony and/or respond to questions from the commission(s) or
public.
Upon conclusion of the public hearing and deliberations on or after March 16th, the planning
commissions will be asked to forward recommendations to adopt/not adopt the proposals or
modified proposal to the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Overview of Proposed Amendments
Attachment 1-7
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED METRO PLAN AMENDMENT, DRAFT
PLAN POLICIES & IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
LRP 2009‐00014
December 31, 2009
Significant Land Use Planning Update
In order to carry out the mandate of 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650 requiring Springfield to separately
establish its own urban growth boundary pursuant to statewide land use goals, Springfield staff are
preparing a city‐wide comprehensive planning document– the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP).
This plan will be a refinement plan of the Metro Plan for the metro urban area east of I‐5 that will
establish a separate Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for Springfield as required by ORS 197.304. The
Springfield UGB is required to provide a 20‐year supply of land to meet the City’s projected needs,
consistent with all applicable planning goals, statutes and administrative rules. The SRP will articulate
Springfield’s preferred future land use vision and a development/redevelopment implementation
strategy to support incremental achievement of that vision over the planning period. See Section A –
Draft Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and Section B – Work Programs.
This proposed Metro Plan Amendment is Springfield’s response to the HB 3337 mandate. Development
of the SRP is a significant step for Springfield. The SRP diagram and policies herein establish a separate
UGB and land use inventories for Springfield and lay foundation for future updates to Springfield’s
neighborhood refinement and specific area plans. The SRP includes a parcel‐specific plan diagram that
refines the general Metro Plan diagram (referred to locally as the “blob” map). Transitioning to a city‐
wide specific plan map to implement updated land use goals and policies and guide development and
redevelopment is a major undertaking that will require a more specific level of detail, citizen
involvement at the neighborhood level, considerable attention to urban design, housing affordability,
public safety, transportation and public facilities elements, etc. The City intends to develop additional
specific plans and policies incrementally and the SRP will address Springfield’s work program for future
planning studies to accomplish these tasks. Supplemental information about two concurrent planning
studies (Springfield Downtown District Plan and Glenwood Refinement Plan Update) have been included
in this draft policy package as examples of the type of land use plans the City intends to prepare and
adopt as resources are available and as the Springfield City Council identifies future goals and priorities.
Springfield’s setting, topography and natural assets make the City an attractive place to live and work
and provide impetus for new development and redevelopment that takes advantage of these features.
These same assets also present significant challenges to achieving a compact urban development form
as the city and region grow. Springfield’s buildable land supply is constrained by slopes, wetlands, and
riparian resource areas. Future urban development in and adjacent to these constrained areas will
Attachment 1-8
require Springfield to determine how conflicting statewide planning goals and Metro Plan policies will be
balanced and addressed and at what cost to the city and region. For example, the majority of
Springfield’s vacant residential land is located on slopes greater than 15 percent, in hillside areas that
may be impossible to serve with public transportation.
Key Elements of the Proposed Metro Plan Amendment
The preliminary draft SRP Urbanization, Economic and Residential plan policies included in this package
of Metro Plan amendments are focused primarily on the 20‐year land supply ‐ a Springfield UGB (UGB
Alternatives Analysis) and adoption of measures intended to use urbanizable and already‐developed
land more efficiently (Proposed Land Use Efficiency Measures Implementation). Public review of the
preliminary draft UGB concepts and elements will inform further policy development of these and
additional plan elements. The Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions will conduct joint
public hearings on the SRP beginning in February 2010.
The SRP contains plans and policies to address specific deficiencies identified in the recently completed
land use inventories. These plans and policies include:
1) a separate urban growth boundary. See Section A – Plan Diagram.
2) a proposed 640‐acre UGB expansion to provide sites for future employment growth. See
Section F – UGB Alternatives Analysis and Section A – Urbanization Element.
3) an Urbanization Element describing Springfield’s proposal to designate the newly‐urbanizable
areas as “Urban Holding Areas” that require a Metro Plan Amendment process prior to
annexation and urbanization. The UGB Alternatives Analysis will be adopted as an appendix to
the Urbanization Element. See Section A – Urbanization Element and Section F – UGB
Alternatives Analysis.
4) an Economic Element that articulates Springfield’s economic development goals, objectives, and
implementation actions to support Springfield’s development/redevelopment strategy. The
Commercial & Industrial Lands Inventory & Economic Opportunities Analysis, and Economic
Development Objectives and Implementation Strategies) will be adopted as appendices of the
Economic Element. See Section A – Economic Element.
5) a Residential Land & Housing Element that includes Springfield’s proposed housing density and
mix to provide land for needed housing and a preliminary proposal to designate land for high
density housing in the Glenwood North Riverfront Corridor and in Downtown Springfield. The
Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis will be adopted as an appendix of the
Residential Land & Housing Element. See Section A – Residential Land and Housing Element.
The final decision to adopt the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Metro Plan amendment will be an
action that requires co‐adoption by both the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners,
The Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners will conduct public hearings on
the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan later in 2010.
Attachment 1-9
Springfield Land Studies and Community Visioning
In 2009, Springfield completed residential (RLS) and commercial and industrial (CIBL) land studies to
determine needs and to compare identified needs with the available capacity for growth and
redevelopment. The work products of the studies were prepared by the City’s consultant
ECONorthwest and staff in collaboration with the CIBL Stakeholder Advisory Committee, the CIBL
Technical Advisory Committee and the Residential Lands Stakeholder Committee. The City has provided
ample opportunities for meaningful citizen involvement throughout the land studies process. The
studies were informed by the results of a Community Development Survey, two community visioning
workshops, stakeholder interviews, and public open houses. Work sessions with the Planning
Commission and City Council were held at each step of the process to review and refine the work in
progress.
The Springfield City Council has adopted/will adopt the following work products of these studies: 1) the
Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis, 2) the Commercial & Industrial Lands Inventory
& Economic Opportunities Analysis, and 3) the Economic Development Objectives and Implementation
Strategies. These planning documents provide Springfield with baseline inventories, analyses and needs
determinations as an incremental step towards the City’s compliance with its statutory obligations
under ORS 197.304(1)(a)&(b),(2) and (3) and provide a factual basis for developing the plan designations
and plan policies that will guide growth and redevelopment activity to meet community objectives.
These studies are supplemental appendices to the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and thus are
included in the proposed Metro Plan Amendment. See Section G ‐ 2030 Plan Attachments.
Springfield’s Response to the 2007‐2009 Land Studies and Citizen Involvement Process:
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
The results of the land studies identify Springfield’s needs as well as its opportunities, providing clear
directives for policy development. Through adoption of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP),
Springfield will articulate the City’s policy response to the needs analyses. The proposed Metro Plan
amendments contained within the SRP will provide Springfield‐specific refinements to existing Metro
Plan policies. In some cases Springfield’s proposed policies and actions may not be consistent with
Metro Plan policies and will require amendments to Metro Plan text. See Sections B and C ‐ Proposed
Eugene‐Springfield Metro Plan Amendments to Implement HB 3337.
Land Use Efficiency Measures Implementation
The Springfield City Council and Planning Commission have directed staff to prepare policies and
implementation tools to meet Springfield’s future land use needs. The Residential Lands Stakeholder
Committee and Planning Commission reviewed and prioritized potential Land Use Efficiency Measures
for Springfield and recommended that the City Council consider implementing these measures or
consider changing existing policies to increase the land‐use efficiency derived from these measures.
Two public open houses were conducted in April‐May 2009 to gather input on the proposed measures.
In April 2009, the City Council directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to develop the
planning tools necessary to implement the new measures. The SRP includes proposed policies to
supplement and/or refine Metro Plan policies and in some cases proposes new plan designations to
Attachment 1-10
address the Land Use Efficiency Measures. See Section D ‐ Proposed Land Use Efficiency Measures
Implementation. See Section E ‐ Proposed Plan Designation Changes. Please note: The City is
submitting a concurrent Notice of Proposed Amendment to the Department of Land Conservation and
Development of proposed amendments to the Springfield Development Code to implement Land Use
Efficiency Measures Phase One (LRP 2009‐00015).
The SRP will include the following plan elements: 1) an Urbanization Element consisting of goals,
policies, and implementation actions consistent with statewide planning Goal 14; 2) a Land Use and
Urban Design Element that provides Springfield’s proposed plan diagram for lands contained within
Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary and a description of Springfield’s plan designations, plan districts
and neighborhoods; 3) a Residential Land and Housing Element consisting of goals, policies, and
implementation actions consistent with state needed housing statutes and Statewide Planning Goals 10
Housing; and 4) an Economic Development Element consisting of goals, policies, and implementation
actions consistent with statewide planning Goal 9. See Section A – Draft Springfield 2030 Refinement
Plan and Section B – Work Programs.
A key land use challenge for the City of Springfield is how it will accommodate its projected share of
regional economic and population growth while also preserving and enhancing the city’s quality of life
and uniqueness. The City Council directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to develop new
plan policies and zoning ordinances to implement additional Land Use Efficiency Measures in Springfield.
Adoption of these measures — such as increasing density along transit corridors and allowing small lot
development — will provide a planning framework to facilitate compact urban development consistent
with state mandates while supporting multiple community planning objectives and City Council Goals.
Planning staff and the City’s consultant ECONorthwest have gathered input across a broad spectrum to
identify and evaluate potential efficiency measures. Options have been presented to the community via
online surveys, planning workshops and open houses; and work sessions with stakeholder and focus
groups, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff will continue to seek public input on the
proposed measures as we move forward with public hearings. Some measures will result in new plan
designations and/or density ranges adopted into the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan. Others will be
implemented through amendments to the Springfield Development Code.
The proposed SRP plan designations and policies to implement Land Use Efficiency Measures are
informed by two significant concurrent planning processes – the Springfield Downtown District Plan and
Implementation Strategy and the Glenwood Refinement Plan Update. Springfield’s proposed growth
management strategy relies heavily on redevelopment. The Downtown and Glenwood planning studies
will articulate detailed redevelopment strategies for two of the City’s key redevelopment areas. The City
intends to incorporate plan changes and policy amendments into subsequent drafts of the SRP as these
studies are finalized.
It is the City’s intent to have the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan’s goals, objectives, policies and
recommendations outline a growth strategy with five broad components:
Attachment 1-11
5 | Overview
• Promote compact, orderly and efficient urban development by guiding future growth to planned
redevelopment areas within the established portions of the city, and to planned new
neighborhoods where future expansion may occur.
• Encourage a pattern of mixed land uses and development densities that will locate a variety of
different life activities, such as employment, housing, shopping and recreation, in convenient
proximity, to encourage and support multiple modes of transportation, including walking,
bicycling, and transit, in addition to motor vehicles both within and between neighborhoods and
districts.
• Balance the goals of accommodating growth and increasing average density within the city with
the goals to stabilize and preserve the established character of sound older neighborhoods by
clearly defining locations where redevelopment is encouraged, and by requiring that
redevelopment be guided by a detailed neighborhood refinement or special district plan.
• Use selective, planned redevelopment at appropriate locations as one method of providing
additional land use diversity and choices within districts and neighborhoods currently
characterized by a limited range of land uses and activities.
• In both redevelopment areas and new growth areas on the periphery, establish planning and
design standards that will promote economically viable development of attractive, affordable
and engaging districts and neighborhoods.
The Housing Element of the plan will include Springfield‐specific policies to guide future residential and
residential mixed‐use development and redevelopment in a manner that will provide for the projected
housing needs of our community. In some cases, the plan diagram will propose redesignations and/or
new designations for specific parcels in response to deficiencies identified in the findings and
conclusions of the Residential and Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands studies and to resolve
existing plan‐zone conflicts and/or inconsistencies. The housing capacity analysis and Goal 14 UGB
Alternatives Analysis are iterative processes, so the exact amount of land needed for projected
residential growth is subject to adjustment throughout the public policy review process.
Attachment 1-12
Attachment 2-1
LAW OFFICES OF Portland Office
JOHNSON & SHERTON, P.C.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LAND, AIR & WATER LAW
2303 SE GRANT
ALLEN L. JOHNSON, Portland PORTLAND, OR 97214
CORINNE C. SHERTON, Salem 503-233-1533
October 20, 2009
Ed Moore, AICP
Community Services Division
Dept. Land Conservation and Development
644 A Street
Springfield, OR 97478
Re: Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, Residential Lands Study, and HB 3337 Issues
Dear Mr. Moore:
This letter responds to questions and comments you have provided us concerning the proposed
Springfield Residential Lands Analysis, the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, and related
issues. It also provides our current understanding of how HB 3337, the Metro Plan, and other
elements of our acknowledged comprehensive plan relate to one another.
First question: How is Springfield intending to adopt the Springfield Residential Land and
Housing Needs Analysis (RLS)?
Response: The city currently expects to adopt the RLS by resolution before January 1, 2010, as
a preliminary, nonfinal decision, consistent with its statutory obligation to "complete the
inventory, analysis and determination required under ORS 197.296(3) to begin compliance with
this 2007 Act within two years after the effective date of this 2007 Act." See 2007 Or Laws
Chapter 650 (partially codified as ORS 197.304, and commonly known as HB 3337).
The proposed resolution adopting the RLS will explicitly recite that it is not a final land use
decision and will not become final and subject to review until formally adopted upon completion
of the HB 3337/ORS 197.296 process. This is consistent with the advice of the Land Use Board
of Appeals in DLCD v. McMinnville, 41 Or LUBA 210, 228 (2001).
Second question: You have asked if we are adopting the RLS as an amendment to an
acknowledged comprehensive plan.
Response: Not at this time. The RLS will be adopted as part of the 2030 Refinement Plan upon
completion of the HB 3337/ORS 197.296 process.
Attachment 2-2
Ed Moore, AICP
Community Services Division
Re: Springfield Residential Lands Study, HB 3337
October 20, 2009
Page 2
_______________________________
Third question: Will Lane County be co-adopting your analysis?
Response: Yes as to the final product, but not as to the intial step of adopting the RLS. HB
3337 directs "each city" to complete the initial ORS 197.296(3) baseline analysis by January 1,
2010. However, HB 3337 also states that the overall process is to result in the establishment of a
separate UGB pursuant to statewide land use goals. Goal 14 provides that establishment and
change of urban growth boundaries is a cooperative process requiring joint adoption by cities and
counties. The City recognizes that the initial RLS may require modification after January 1,
2010, and that the final RLS will have to be acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners
when they co-adopt Springfield's separate UGB.
Third question: A number of your comments and questions can be summarized as a request to
explain how the proposed Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan relates to the region's
acknowledged comprehensive plan. You have asked us to explain the terms "Refinement Plan"
and "Framework Plan," noting that both terms are used in different contexts by state statutes.
You have also questioned the draft's 2030 Plan's statement that "Together, the Metro Plan and
the functional and refinement plans constitute the region's comprehensive plan." You have
indicated that, as you understand it, the Metro Plan is the region's comprehensive plan.
Response: Springfield's 2030 Refinement Plan will implement HB 3337 using a well-
established acknowledged mechanism of comprehensive plan supplementation that has been
used for a wide range of purposes since the intial acknowledgment of the region's comprehensive
plan in 1982. As the discussion below shows, that acknowledged comprehensive plan is not just
the Metro Plan but includes the Metro Plan and the many functional and refinement plans that
have been adopted and acknowledged over the past quarter-century.
The terms "Comprehensive Plan," "Framework Plan," and "Refinement Plan."
You have asked us to explain the terms "Refinement Plan" and "Framework Plan," noting that
both terms are used in different contexts by state statutes. You have also questioned the draft's
2030 Plan's statement that "Together, the Metro Plan and the functional and refinement plans
constitute the region's comprehensive plan."
Both LUBA and the Court of Appeals have repeatedly and correctly observed that the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area's acknowledged "comprehensive plan" is not the Metro Plan alone,
but a constantly growing and changing "multi-volume" package of plan documents, including a
dominant but highly generalized "framework plan" and a variety of "refinement plans" which not
only "refine" but "supplement" the framework document.
Attachment 2-3
Ed Moore, AICP
Community Services Division
Re: Springfield Residential Lands Study, HB 3337
October 20, 2009
Page 3
_______________________________
A few examples:
Home Builders Assoc. v. City of Eugene, 52 Or LUBA 341 (2006)(Home Builders I)
“The City of Eugene, the City of Springfield and Lane County have jointly
adopted a comprehensive plan for the Eugene/Springfield urban area. That
comprehensive plan is made up of many different plan documents. However,
a single plan document, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan), is the framework plan around which those jurisdictions' multi-
volume comprehensive plan is built. * * * [emphasis added]
"The Introduction chapter of the Metro Plan explains the relationship of the
hierarchically superior Metro Plan document to the many other planning
documents that combine to make up the regional comprehensive plan:
"`Where the [Metro] Plan is the basic guiding land use policy document, it
is not the only such document. As indicated in the Purpose section above,
the [Metro] Plan is a framework plan, and it is important that it be
supplemented by more detailed refinement plans, programs, and
policies. Due to budget limits and other responsibilities, all such plans,
programs, and policies cannot be pursued simultaneously. * * * [emphasis
added]
"`Refinements to the [Metro] Plan can include: 1) city-wide
comprehensive policy documents, such as the 1984 Eugene Community
Goals and Policies; 2) functional plans and policies addressing single
subjects throughout the area, such as water, sewer, or transportation plans;
and 3) neighborhood plans or special area studies that address those issues
that are unique to a specific geographical area. In all cases, the [Metro]
Plan is the guiding document, and refinement plans and policies must be
consistent with the [Metro] Plan. Should inconsistencies occur, the
[Metro] Plan is the prevailing policy document. The process for reviewing
and adopting refinement plans is outlined in Chapter IV.' Metro Plan I-5.”
52 Or LUBA at 343-45.
"Although we . . . do not decide the question here, we see no reason why
the concept of a 'Refinement Plan' as defined at Metro Plan V-5 . . . is
limited to documents that can be characterized as 'plans,' as opposed to
plans, programs, policies, strategies or other documents that are being
adopted as refinements of the Metro Plan. . ." Id, 52 Or LUBA at 357, fn.
12.
Attachment 2-4
Ed Moore, AICP
Community Services Division
Re: Springfield Residential Lands Study, HB 3337
October 20, 2009
Page 4
_______________________________
Friends of Eugene v. City of Eugene, 196 Or App 771(2004).
"The Metro Plan . . . is a regional comprehensive plan that was adopted by Lane County
and the cities of Eugene and Springfield and that is considered a part of the city's
comprehensive plan."
Opus v. City of Eugene, 28 Or LUBA 670, 676 (1995):
". . .[R]efinement plans are part of the city's comprehensive plan."
The 2030 Refinement Plans for Eugene and Springfield fit comfortably within the Metro Plan's
description of refinement plans. They will be "city-wide comprehensive policy documents" that
will both refine and supplement the Metro Plan.
Plan Consistency
The Metro Plan continues to serve as the policy framework, subject to superseding state laws,
including but not limited to 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650 (HB 3337). The 2030 Refinement Plans
will also maintain consistency with the rest of the region's comprehensive plan, including the
transportation and public facilities plans. Because the region's comprehensive plan is a multi-
part, frequently-changing set of documents, consistency will be achieved in part by having the
2030 refinement plans recognize that they are part of that process.
Here too, our approach is consistent with recent guidance from LUBA and the Court of Appeals.
Both have recognized that comprehensive planning is a dynamic process and that neither Goal
Two nor ORS 197.015(5) requires constant resynchronization of all the parts of complex
comprehensive plans adopted to deal with a changing world, including evolving requirements of
state land use statutes, goals, and rules.
As the Court of Appeals put it last year, in a similar context:
"Petitioners have not demonstrated any basis in goal 2 or ORS 197.015(5) to require the
city to update the existing comprehensive plan contemporaneously with adopting the
MUR [Madras Urbanization Report]. While language in the guidelines to Goal 2 states
that the comprehensive plan should 'form a consistent whole at all times,' the guidelines
to the goals are not mandatory approval criteria that must be satisfied to approve or deny
a post-acknowledgment plan amendment. Downtown Comm. Assoc. v. City of
Portland, 80 Or App 336, 340, 722 P2d 1258 (1986); ORS 197.015(9)."
"Aside from that, it is not clear to us that there is a conflict between the MUR and the
balance of the comprehensive plan in the first place, . . . the MUR made clear that the
Attachment 2-5
Ed Moore, AICP
Community Services Division
Re: Springfield Residential Lands Study, HB 3337
October 20, 2009
Page 5
_______________________________
newer information supersedes contrary data in the existing comprehensive plan." GMK
Developments, LLC v City of Madras, 225 Or App 1, 8 (2008), affirming LUBA
decision.
Several cases illustrate how LUBA and the Court of Appeals understand the relationship
between the area's framework plan, other parts of the comprehensive plan, implementing
regulations and decisions.
In Knutson Family LLC v. City of Eugene, 200 Or App 292, 114 3d 1150 (2005), a city
hearings officer rejected a request to rezone property from residential to commercial, consistent
with the Willakenzie Area Refinement Plan, on the ground that the refinement plan designation
conflicted with the Metro Plan Diagram. The Court of Appeals reversed, pointing out that the
Metro Plan Diagram is a very generalized "blob" that has been refined and supplemented by the
more specific refinement plan. As the Court said, "Although it is clear that the Metro Plan is the
guiding document and takes precedence over a refinement plan where inconsistencies exist, the
Metro Plan diagram is only a generalized depiction of land uses."
In Home Builders Association v. City of Eugene, ___ Or LUBA ___ (LUBA 2008-148/149,
Final Opinion and Order June 12, 2009), LUBA recognized that "The City of Eugene's
comprehensive plan is made up of a number of documents" and that "Two of those documents
are the Metro Plan and the West University Refinement Plan." LUBA went on to find that
certain code amendments affecting parking were inconsistent with specific policies in the
refinement plan. In contrast, LUBA determined that other code amendments did not conflict
with generally-worded Metro Plan policies about reducing impervious surfaces and removing
barriers to higher density housing.
In Jaqua v. City of Springfield, 193 Or App 573, 91 P3d 817 (2004), the Court of Appeals
ruled that the Metro Plan's definition of "residential lands" was sufficiently specific to preclude
amendments to the Gateway Refinement Plan allowing a regional hospital on such lands, but that
the same language was too general to exclude neighborhood hospitals.
Effect of the statutory "Notwithstanding" clause
Several of your comments seem to assume that the Metro Plan will have to be amended in order
to allow Eugene and Springfield to meet their obligations under the statute. The clear import of
those comments is that, notwithstanding the statutory notwithstanding clause, and
notwithstanding the statute's mandate that each city meet its obligations "separately from any
other city," the Metro Plan can still be used to prevent each city from meeting those obligations.
We respectfully disagree. Such a narrow reading of HB 3337's "notwithstanding" clause is
inconsistent with the purpose, text, context, and clearly-stated mandates of the statute.
Attachment 2-6
Ed Moore, AICP
Community Services Division
Re: Springfield Residential Lands Study, HB 3337
October 20, 2009
Page 6
_______________________________
Oregon's courts will not uphold an agency reading, by rule or otherwise, that ignores, frustrates,
or nullifies a new statute. See Wetherell v. Douglas County, 342 Or 666, 160 P3d 614
(2007)(invalidating LCDC rule prohibiting local governments from considering "profitability" in
identifying agricultural land when legislature had amended ORS 197.203 to define "farm use" as
"the current employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money.")
As you know, the meaning of the statute is a legal question for the court. LCDC has not adopted
rules to interpret 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650. As the Wetherell case indicates, an interpretive
rule so clearly inconsistent with the purpose, text, and context of the statute would get no
deference from the courts. As the Court of Appeals said recently, it "defers to an agency's
interpretation of its own rule only as long as that interpretation 'cannot be shown either to be
inconsistent with the wording of the rule itself, or with the rule's context, or with any other
source of law.'" Gafur v. Legacy Good Samaritan, 344 Or 525, 185 P3d 446 (2008).
With these principles in mind, here is how we read 2007 Or Laws Chapter 650:
Section 2(1) is the operative heart of Chapter 650. It begins with the notwithstanding clause,
which applies to each and every obligation that follows:
Section 2. (1) Notwithstanding an intergovernmental agreement pursuant to ORS
190.003 to 190.130 or acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions to the contrary, a
city within Lane County that has a population of 50,000 or more within its boundaries
shall meet its obligation under ORS 197.295 to 197.314 separately from any other city
within Lane County. The City shall, separately from any other city:
(a) Establish an urban growth boundary, consistent with the jurisdictional area of
responsibility specified in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and
(b) Demonstrate, as required by ORS 197.296, that its comprehensive plan provides
sufficient buildable lands within an urban growth boundary established pursuant to
statewide planning goals to accommodate estimated housing needs for 20 years.
What this language clearly means is that Eugene and Springfield is each required by statute to
• "separately" meet its obligations under ORS 197.295 to 197.314 "notwithstanding" IGAs
and comprehensive plan provisions to the contrary;
• "separately establish its own urban growth boundary, "notwithstanding" IGAs and
comprehensive plan provisions to the contrary;;
• "separately" demonstrate, "notwithstanding" IGAs and comprehensive plan provisions to
the contrary, that its comprehensive plan provides sufficient buildable lands within a UGB
Attachment 2-7
Ed Moore, AICP
Community Services Division
Re: Springfield Residential Lands Study, HB 3337
October 20, 2009
Page 7
_______________________________
established pursuant to statewide planning goals to accommodated estimated housing needs for
20 years.
Read in context, any IGA or comprehensive plan provisions which make it impossible or
impracticable for a city to separately, timely, and completely fulfill its duties under the statute
must be considered to be "to the contrary" within the meaning of the statute.
Effect of Separate City Action under HB 3337 on Existing Comprehensive Plan
A subsidiary question has been raised concerning the effect of one city's adopting a 2030
Refinement Plan and UGB or related inventory on the current Metro UGB and other elements of
the existing regional comprehensive plan as they apply to the other city.
Section 2(2) of HB 3337 addresses this issue. It provides as follows:
"(2) Except as provided in subsection (1) of this section, this section does not alter or
affect an intergovernmental agreement pursuant to ORS 190.003 to 190.130 or
acknowledged comprehensive plan provisions adopted by Lane County or local
governments in Lane County."
This language, both by its terms and read in context, is a straightforward savings clause. It does
not retract or limit the notwithstanding clause in any way. What it does do is to clearly
contradict the idea that whenever either city separately takes a step towards meeting its
obligations under the statute, it effectively repeals or disacknowledges the area's comprehensive
plan for the other city. This reading is consistent with interpretive principles to avoid
unnecessary state preemption of local legislation and to harmonize all applicable statutes and
local land use provisions where possible. See Baker v. City of Woodburn, 190 Or App 445, 79
P3d 906 (2003); Historical Development Advocates v. City of Portland, 27 Or LUBA 617
(1994). See also, Miller v. Meisel Co., Inc., 183 Or App 148, 51 P3d 650 (2002)(statutory terms
to be given "a broad construction commensurate with the statute's purpose." ).
On the contrary, Section 2 assures that the Metro Plan and all its parts, including its inventories
and urban growth boundary, remain acknowledged and in effect except where, when, and to the
extent they have been replaced by a separately-adopted inventory, plan element, or UGB in
fulfillment of the mandates of the 2007 statute.
Section 2 means, for example, that if Springfield adopts a 2030 inventory or other plan element
for east of I-5 in order to meet its statutory obligations, Eugene will still be able to rely on the
acknowledged Metro inventory, acknowledged Metro Plan policies, acknowledged functional
and refinement plans, and the acknowledged Metro UGB when making land use decisions west
of I-5 until it separately updates or replaces those elements for its own jurisdictional area.
Attachment 2-8
Ed Moore, AICP
Community Services Division
Re: Springfield Residential Lands Study, HB 3337
October 20, 2009
Page 8
_______________________________
Conclusion
The city appreciates the opportunity to address your questions and hopes that it has done so to
your satisfaction. To summarize the discussion above:
● The City reads HB 3337 to require the city to complete the initial stage of the ORS
197.296 process by the end of the year.
● That initial stage does not include adoption or amendment of an urban growth boundary
or of any comprehensive plan policies or designations.
● We are coordinating extensively with the county at every stage of the process, including
this one.
● The City agrees that there are uncertainties concerning the ORS 197.296 process. These
uncertainties predate HB 3337 and affect cities and counties across the state.
● Springfield will complete its HB 3337 baseline tasks by the statutory deadlines by a
resolution of adoption that is explicitly not a final land use decision.
Sincerely,
Allen L. Johnson
Special Counsel to the City of Springfield
cc: Bill Grile, Director, Development Services
Bill Van Vactor, Office of Springfield City Attorneys
Emily Jerome, Office of Eugene City Attorneys
Steve Vorhes, Lane County Counsel's office
Steve Shipsey, Attorney General's office
Richard Whitman, DLCD Director
Attachment 2-9
Attachment 2-10
Attachment 2-11
Attachment 2-12
DRAFT
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
Section F: Preliminary Urban Growth Boundary Alternatives Analysis
January 29, 2010
Attachment 3-1
Phone • (541) 687-0051 Suite 400 Other Offices FAX • (541) 344-0562 99 W. 10th Avenue Portland • (503) 222-6060
info@eugene.econw.com Eugene, Oregon 97401-3001 Seattle • (206) 622-2403
11 February 2009
TO: Linda Pauly
FROM: Bob Parker and Beth Goodman
SUBJECT: DRAFT OUTLINE FOR ALTERATIVES ANALYSIS FINDINGS
This memorandum contains an annotated outline of the final report ECONorthwest will produce
to document the findings for the City of Springfield UGB alternatives analysis.
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
a. Background
b. The Springfield 2030 Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
i. Population Projection
ii. Residential and Public / Semi-Public Land Need and UGB Supply
iii. Employment Land Need and UGB Supply
iv. Combined Year 2030 Buildable Land Need and Supply
v. The Location of the UGB
2. INTRODUCTION
a. Background
b. Policy Context
c. Organization of this report
3. PART I YEAR 2030 LAND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
a. Year 2030 Population and Employment Projection
b. Land needs: 2010-2030
c. Residential land need
Attachment 3-2
Springfield UGB Alternatives Analysis: Draft Outline February 2009 Page 2
i. Residential land use efficiency measures
d. Non-residential land need (commercial and industrial)
i. land use efficiency measures, employment lands
ii. Summary of needed site characteristics
1. Industrial sites
2. Other employment sites
e. Land needed for other uses (public and semi-public)
f. Summary of land needs, 2010-2030
4. PART II: SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH CONCEPT, 2010-2030
a. Guiding principles
b. Springfield Urban Growth concept, 2010-2030
5. PART III: UGB LOCATIONAL CRITERIA
a. Introduction
b. UGB Study Areas
c. UGB Locational Criteria
d. Goal 14 Location Factors
e. Background
i. (1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs
ii. (2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services
1. Study Area 1
2. Study area 2
3. Study area X
iii. (3) Comparative economic, social, environmental and energy (ESEE)
consequences
1. Comparative Economic Consequences
2. Comparative Social Consequences
Attachment 3-3
Springfield UGB Alternatives Analysis: Draft Outline February 2009 Page 3
3. Comparative Environmental Consequences
4. Comparative Energy Consequences
5. ESEE Summary
iv. (4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural
activities occurring on farm land outside the UGB.
1. Study Area 1
2. Study Area 2
3. Study Area 3
4. Study Area 4
f. UGB Location Conclusion
6. APPENDIX A UGB STUDY AREA SUMMARIES
a. Background
b. Study area 1
i. Study area description
ii. Public Facilities Project Descriptions – Study Area 1
1. Sanitary Sewer
2. Water Service
3. Transportation
4. Storm Drainage
c. Study area 2
i. Study area description
ii. Public Facilities Project Descriptions – Study Area 2
1. Sanitary Sewer
2. Water Service
3. Transportation
4. Storm Drainage
Attachment 3-4
Phone • (541) 687-0051 Suite 400 Other Offices FAX • (541) 344-0562 99 W. 10th Avenue Portland • (503) 222-6060 info@eugene.econw.com Eugene, Oregon 97401-3001 Seattle • (206) 622-2403
30 December 2008
TO: Springfield City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Parker
SUBJECT: OPPORTUNITY AREAS FOR EMPLOYMENT SITES AND
REQUIREMENTS FOR UGB ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
This memorandum presents a brief description of state planning requirements for the modifications
of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs). It also includes maps of lands outside the UGB, with a
specific focus on 10 employment opportunity areas.
The objectives of this memorandum (and our January 12th meeting) are to provide the City Council
and Planning Commission with:
• An overview of opportunity areas for employment
• Background information on the Alternatives Analysis
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF LANDS OUTSIDE THE SPRINGFIELD UGB
The draft economic opportunities and housing needs analyses both conclude that Springfield will
need to expand its UGB to accommodate growth forecast for the 2010-2030 period. The exact
acreage of the expansion is not yet known; it will depend on the types of land use efficiency
measures the City adopts, as well as the specific areas that it chooses to expand into.
As a first step in the Alternatives Analysis, ECONorthwest worked with City staff to develop a
series of maps showing characteristics of lands adjacent to the existing Springfield portion of the
Metropolitan UGB.1 The primary study area lands adjacent to the Springfield portion of the
Metropolitan UGB. The following maps support this memorandum:
• Map 1: Aerial photo of study areas
• Map 2: Study area zoning (exceptions, marginal land, resource land)
• Map 3: Study area constraints
1 The evaluation does not consider lands inside the Eugene portion of the Metropolitan UGB, or lands west of Interstate 5.
Attachment 3-5
UGB Alternatives Analysis Requirements December 30, 2008 Page 2
• Map 4: Study area soil class
• Map 5: Study area national wetlands inventory and hydric soils
POTENTIAL AREAS FOR EMPLOYMENT
The EOA concludes the City will need to add employment sites to the UGB. Chapter 5 of the EOA
identifies a need for larger sites (>5 acres), and some very large sites (three sites >50 acres). Chapter
5 of the EOA also identifies site characteristics that are specific to different industries. Because of
the need for larger sites, and the more specific siting characteristics, planners often start the
alternatives analysis by identifying potential employment sites.
At its November meeting, the Technical Advisory Committee identified the following employment
opportunity areas. This was largely a brainstorming session to conduct a first-cut analysis.
1. North Gateway Area
2. Hayden Bridge Area
3. North Springfield Highway Area
4. Far East Springfield Area
5. Wallis Creek Road Area
6. West Jasper/Jasper Bridge Area
7. Clearwater Area
8. South of Mill Race Area
9. Seavey Loop Area
10. Goshen Area
The map on the following page shows the approximate location of the employment opportunity
areas. The Stakeholder Committee will discuss the sites at our next meeting scheduled for January
5th. We will summarize the Committee’s comments at the beginning of the January 12th worksession.
Attachment 3-6
2. Hayden Bridge Area 1. North Gateway Area 8. South of Mill Race Area 7. Clearwater Area 4. Far East Springfield Area 3. North Springfield Highway Area 9. Seavey Loop Area 10. Goshen Area 5. Wallis Creek Road Area 6. West Jasper / Jasper Bridge Area Attachment 3-7
UGB Alternatives Analysis Requirements December 30, 2008 Page 4 Table 1. Employment Opportunity Areas: Public Service Opportunities and Constraints The following table summarizes public service opportunities and constraints based on information from the Springfield Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The table is draft, and will be refined through additional discussions with staff and the TAC. Area Water Wastewater Stormwater Transportation Public Safety Comments 1. North Gateway May require pumping station Existing sewer in close proximity Potential higher cost than other areas No developed system, wetlands, riparian areas and natural resources areas. Permitting required for new outfalls No internal road network Access from existing farm roads Limited capacity at I-5/Beltline interchange Underpass/overpass provides potential access Portions of the site are in the floodplain and floodway 2. Hayden Bridge May require pumping across river, then Potential gravity flow Potential higher cost than other areas No developed system Need to acquire base data Access from Marcola Road Existing bridge in place Some floodplain / floodway located west of Marcola Rd. Some steep slopes located east of Marcola Rd. 3. North Springfield Highway May require a pump station for some areas – mostly gravity flow wetlands, riparian areas and natural resources areas. Permitting required for new outfalls Potential access to I-105 and High Banks Road Portions of the site are in the floodplain and floodway 4. Far East Springfield May require pumping station Needs planning and infrastructure Access from E. Main Street Some steep slopes 5. Wallis Creek Road Potential gravity flow area Needs planning and infrastructure Access from Jasper Rd. Existing bridge would likely need upgrade for increased traffic generation Not a lot of floodplain area Employment Opportunity AreasAttachment 3-8
UGB Alternatives Analysis Requirements December 10, 2008 Page 5 Area Water Wastewater Stormwater Transportation Public Safety Comments 6. West Jasper/ Jasper Bridge May require pump station Needs planning and infrastructure Access from Jasper Road Large portion of rural residential / commercial land 7. Clearwater Potential gravity flow area Existing sewer in close proximity New sewer extension planned along Jasper Road Needs flood study Needs planning and infrastructure Access from Jasper Road Some floodplain along existing UGB Large portions without floodplain 8. South of Mill Race Existing sewer in close proximity Potential gravity flow area Needs flood study Needs planning and infrastructure Limited discharge opportunitiesAccess to S. 28th St. & S. M St. Existing SUB well fields in place Mostly publicly owned land 9. Seavey Loop No existing water service Need sewer extension from Glenwood Upgrades to existing pump station Potential gravity flow area Needs flood study Needs planning and infrastructure Limited discharge opportunitiesLimited capacity at I-5/30th Street interchange Need for rail and river crossings Opportunities for rail access Opportunities for parkland at river confluence area School capacity may be limited 10. Goshen Potential gravity flow area Potential higher cost than other areas Needs planning and infrastructure Attachment 3-9
UGB Alternatives Analysis Requirements December 10, 2008 Page 6 Table 2. Employment Opportunity Areas: Site Characteristics and Suitability The following table summarizes the suitability for development by building type in each of the employment opportunity areas. The table also presents the site characteristics (identified in the economic opportunities analysis (EOA)) that make the opportunity area suitable. The building types identified in the EOA are: Warehousing and Distribution (W&D), General Industrial (GI), Office (Off.), Retail (Ret.), and Other Services (OS). The EOA identified need for sites 5 acres and larger in each of these building types. Area Suitability by Building Type Site Characteristics that make the site suitable Comments W &D GI Off. Ret. OS1. North Gateway z z z } z Potentially 50+ acre site(s)Located near I-5 interchange Relatively flat Surrounding uses compatible with warehousing and industrial uses Visible from I-5 or arterial streets Potential demand for land in the North Gateway area (according to Jack Roberts) Willing multiple owners (according to Jack Roberts) 2. Hayden Bridge [ [ z } z Sites 5+ acresAccess to arterial streets Slopes less than 15% Surrounding uses are compatible with office, retail, and other service uses Visible from arterial or collector streets High amenity area presents opportunities for corporate head quarters or other commercial 3. North Springfield Highway [ [ z } } Sites 5+ acresType of street access Slopes less than 15% Surrounding uses are compatible with office, retail, and other service uses 4. Far East Springfield [ [ z } } Sites 5+ acresAccess to arterial streets Areas with slopes less than 15% Surrounding uses are compatible with office, retail, and other service uses Visible from arterial or collector streets Attachment 3-10
UGB Alternatives Analysis Requirements December 10, 2008 Page 7 Area Suitability by Building Type Site Characteristics that make the site suitable Comments W &D GI Off. Ret. OS5. Wallis Creek Road [ z } [ [ Potentially 50+ acre site(s)Type of street access Slopes less than 15% Surrounding uses are compatible with industrial, office, retail, and other service uses 6. West Jasper/ Jasper Bridge [ z } [ [ Potentially 50+ acre site(s)Type of street access Slopes less than 15% Surrounding uses are compatible with industrial, office, retail, and other service uses 7. Clearwater [ [ } } } Sites 5+ acresAccess to collector and neighborhood streets Slopes less than 15% 8. South of Mill Race [ [ } } } Sites 5+ acresAccess to collector and neighborhood streets Slopes less than 15% Surrounding uses are compatible with office, retail, and other service uses 9. Seavey Loop z z } [ } Potentially 50+ acre site(s)Located near I-5 interchange Relatively flat Surrounding uses compatible with warehousing, industrial, office, and other service uses Rail access Opportunity for denser industrial development Commercial firms have expressed interest in this area (according to Jack Roberts) Attachment 3-11
UGB Alternatives Analysis Requirements December 10, 2008 Page 8 Area Suitability by Building Type Site Characteristics that make the site suitable Comments W &D GI Off. Ret. OS10. Goshen z z [ [ [ Potentially 50+ acre site(s)Located near I-5 interchange Relatively flat Surrounding uses compatible with warehousing, industrial, office, and other service uses May meet regional industrial land need Note: z Highly suitable } Somewhat suitable [ Unsuitable Attachment 3-12
UGB Alternatives Analysis Requirements December 30, 2008 Page 9
POLICY CONTEXT FOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
This section provides a brief overview of statewide planning goal 14 (Urbanization) and related
statutes and administrative rules that govern UGB expansions. These include Goal 14, ORS 197.298,
and OAR 660-024. .
Goal 14: Urbanization
The purpose of goal 14 is:
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth
boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
The goal requires that incorporated cities establish UGBs. Moreover, any UGB amendments must
be a collaborative process that involves cities and counties and must be adopted by both the city and
the county.
Goal 14 requires change of urban growth boundaries be based on the following:
(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population, consistent with a 20-year
population forecast coordinated with affected local governments; and
(2) Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities, livability or uses such as public
facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks or open space, or any combination of the need
categories.
Goal 14 includes two other need provisions that are relevant: (1) “in determining need, local
governments may specify characteristics, such as parcel size, topography or proximity, necessary for
land to be suitable for an identified need”; and (2) “prior to expanding an urban growth boundary,
local governments shall demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land
already inside the urban growth boundary.” In summary, needs can include land characteristics and
cities must consider whether needs can be met within the existing UGB before expanding the UGB.
This is germane to the first steps in the Alternatives Analysis. For example, the City could choose to
identify certain areas such as lands with steep slopes or lands in federal ownership as not meeting
identified needs.
Priority of lands
ORS 197.298 establishes a priority of lands for consideration in UGB expansions:
(a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145, rule or
metropolitan service district action plan. (Springfield does not have urban reserve areas;
therefore, this does not apply).
(b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount
of land needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is
identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area or nonresource land.
Attachment 3-13
UGB Alternatives Analysis Requirements December 10, 2008
Second priority may include resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas
unless such resource land is high-value farmland as described in ORS 215.710.
(c) If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the
amount of land needed, third priority is land designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS
197.247. (Lane County is a marginal land county; therefore, this applies to Springfield).
(d) If land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the
amount of land needed, fourth priority is land designated in an acknowledged
comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both.
In short, there are three priorities that apply to Springfield. First priority is exception areas or non-
resource lands, and may include resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas
unless such resource land is high-value farmland. Second priority is marginal land. Third priority is
resource land.
Goal 14 provides some additional guidance on boundary locations with consideration of the
following factors:
(1) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs;
(2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services;
(3) Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and
(4) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities
occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB.
These factors provide direction on selection of lands within the priority scheme and also outline
some reasons why lower priority lands may be part of an expansion area if they may better address
these factors than lands in higher priority categories. The ORS 197.298 priority scheme is relatively
rigid, but the Goal 14 factors allow some flexibility. ORS 197.298 and Goal 14 allow some
exceptions to the priority scheme based on “special” needs. For example, if a city identifies a need
for lower cost housing that can only be developed on flat land, then that may be a reason to include
some resource lands before, or together with, exceptions lands. Such an exception would require
additional justification and must be supported by solid technical analysis.
Division 24: The Urbanization Rule
In 2006, the Land Development and Conservation Commission adopted amendments to the
Urbanization Rule (OAR 660-024) that were intended to clarify the process of amending UGBs. We
have referred to this rule, and some of the safe harbors it establishes, in work on the housing and
economic elements.
Subsection 0050 clarifies the procedures for land inventories and local government response to land
deficiencies. OAR 660-024-0050(4) requires cities to amend UGBs in response to land deficiencies:
“If the inventory demonstrates that the development capacity of land inside the
UGB is inadequate to accommodate the estimated 20-year needs… the local
Attachment 3-14
UGB Alternatives Analysis Requirements December 10, 2008
government must amend the plan to satisfy the need deficiency, either by increasing
the development capacity of land already inside the city or by expanding the UGB, or
both, and in accordance with ORS 197.296 where applicable. Prior to expanding the
UGB, a local government must demonstrate that the estimated needs cannot
reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the UGB. Changes to the UGB
must be determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations consistent with
OAR 660-024-0060.”
Based on the Economic and Housing Elements, preliminary land needs have been identified.
In the draft Urbanization Element presented to the Committee, the findings of the buildable
lands inventory and land needs analysis are that some of the need will be met within the
UGB, but that additional buildable land will be needed.
Boundary Location Alternatives Analysis
OAR 660-024-0060 requires cities conduct an “Alternatives Analysis” when considering a UGB
amendment. The alternatives analysis (the part of the UGB review process that we are now moving
into) requires all lands adjacent to the existing UGB be reviewed (e.g., a ring around the UGB).
Relevant sections of OAR 660-024-0060 specify the following:
(1) When considering a UGB amendment, a local government must determine which land to
add by evaluating alternative boundary locations. This determination must be consistent with
the priority of land specified in ORS 197.298 and the boundary location factors of Goal 14, as
follows:
(a) Beginning with the highest priority of land available, a local government must determine
which land in that priority is suitable to accommodate the need deficiency determined under
660-024-0050.
(b) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category exceeds the amount necessary
to satisfy the need deficiency, a local government must apply the location factors of Goal 14
to choose which land in that priority to include in the UGB.
(c) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category is not adequate to satisfy the
identified need deficiency, a local government must determine which land in the next priority
is suitable to accommodate the remaining need, and proceed using the same method
specified in subsections (a) and (b) of this section until the land need is accommodated.
(d) Notwithstanding subsection (a) through (c) of this section, a local government may
consider land of lower priority as specified in ORS 197.298(3).
(e) For purposes of this rule, the determination of suitable land to accommodate land needs
must include consideration of any suitability characteristics specified under section (5) of this
rule, as well as other provisions of law applicable in determining whether land is buildable or
suitable.
…
Attachment 3-15
UGB Alternatives Analysis Requirements December 10, 2008
(3) The boundary location factors of Goal 14 are not independent criteria. When the factors are
applied to compare alternative boundary locations and to determine the UGB location, a local
government must show that all the factors were considered and balanced.
(4) In determining alternative land for evaluation under ORS 197.298, "land adjacent to the
UGB" is not limited to those lots or parcels that abut the UGB, but also includes land in the
vicinity of the UGB that has a reasonable potential to satisfy the identified need deficiency.
(5) If a local government has specified characteristics such as parcel size, topography, or
proximity that are necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need, the local government
may limit its consideration to land that has the specified characteristics when it conducts the
boundary location alternatives analysis and applies ORS 197.298.
(6) The adopted findings for UGB adoption or amendment must describe or map all of the
alternative areas evaluated in the boundary location alternatives analysis. If the analysis involves
more than one parcel or area within a particular priority category in ORS 197.298 for which
circumstances are the same, these parcels or areas may be considered and evaluated as a single
group.
(7) For purposes of Goal 14 Boundary Location Factor 2, "public facilities and services" means
water, sanitary sewer, storm water management, and transportation facilities.
(8) The Goal 14 boundary location determination requires evaluation and comparison of the
relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of alternative UGB expansion areas with respect to
the provision of public facilities and services needed to urbanize alternative boundary locations.
This evaluation and comparison must be conducted in coordination with service providers,
including the Oregon Department of Transportation with regard to impacts on the state
transportation system. "Coordination" includes timely notice to service providers and the
consideration of evaluation methodologies recommended by service providers. The evaluation
and comparison must include:
(a) The impacts to existing water, sanitary sewer, storm water and transportation facilities
that serve nearby areas already inside the UGB;
(b) The capacity of existing public facilities and services to serve areas already inside the
UGB as well as areas proposed for addition to the UGB; and
(c) The need for new transportation facilities, such as highways and other roadways,
interchanges, arterials and collectors, additional travel lanes, other major improvements on
existing roadways and, for urban areas of 25,000 or more, the provision of public transit
service.
Attachment 3-16
Phone • (541) 687-0051 Suite 400 Other Offices FAX • (541) 344-0562 99 W. 10th Avenue Portland • (503) 222-6060 info@eugene.econw.com Eugene, Oregon 97401-3001 Seattle • (206) 622-2403
15 January 2009
TO: Springfield EOA Stakeholder Committee
FROM: Bob Parker
SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF INPUT FROM COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
AND TAC REGARDING OPPORTUNITY AREAS FOR EMPLOYMENT
SITES
At the January 5th meeting, the Stakeholder Committee reviewed and discussed 10 employment
opportunity sites identified by the Technical Advisory Committee. Since the January 5th meeting,
ECO facilitated a meeting with the TAC to identify service issues and priorities regarding the sites,
and briefed the City Council and Planning Commission on project progress. This memorandum
presents a brief summary of input from the two meetings.
TAC INPUT
The charge to the TAC was to (1) identify additional serviceability and other issues, and (2) identify
priority sites to accommodate large sites. Attached to this memorandum is a site by site summary, as
well as a map that provides general acreages for the sites. The TAC identified the following areas as
employment and/or residential priorities:
• Areas that may be best suited for employment/large sites
(in no particular order)
– North Gateway area (Area 1)
– Seavey Look and Goshen area (Areas 9/10)
– North Springfield Highway Area (Area 3)
• Areas that may be best suited for residential
(in no particular order)
– Hayden Bridge area
– Far east Springfield area
– Clearwater area
– Wallace Creek area
Attachment 3-17
Input on Employment Opportunity Sites January 15, 2009 Page 2
The TAC also suggested that the Jasper area is a low priority for both employment and housing
uses. TAC members identified opportunities for a combination of uses (employment, housing, and
parks/open space) in the Seavey Loop/Goshen area. Finally, the TAC recommended combining
areas 9/10 into a single study area.
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT
Staff and ECONorthwest presented project progress at a joint City Council/Planning Commission
meeting on January 12. We asked the decisionmakers to comment on three aspects of the project:
1. Site needs, with an emphasis on large sites
2. Assumptions regarding infill, redevelopment, and employment on lands not designated for
employment
3. Employment opportunity sites
In general, decisionmakers appeared pleased with the progress to date, and commended the
Stakeholder Committee for your hard work and thoughtful input. With respect to the three
questions, we heard a range of comments:
• Many decisionmakers thought the City should work to get more large sites, but state
planning requirements are a consideration. Several commented that being aggressive may
cause problems with the goal of developing a defensible UGB proposal that has solid
justification.
• Decisionmakers had a range of opinions regarding the infill/redevelopment assumptions.
There appeared to be general consensus on the infill and employment on non-employment
land assumptions. Some decisionmakers thought the redevelopment assumptions were over-
optimistic and expressed concern about implementation.
• Decisionmakers generally agreed with the TAC recommendations regarding the employment
opportunity sites.
SUMMARY OF INPUT ON EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES
The Stakeholder Committee made a number of suggestions regarding the maps to help better orient
the sites. The map on the following page shows approximate study area boundaries and acreages.
The boundaries are provision and will be refined through further analysis.
Attachment 3-18
I-5I
MAIN
Q
B
J
S5TH MARCOLAC
A
M
P
C
R
E
E
KCOBURG
I-105
JASPER28THF
M
42NDHILLN
L
HILYARDA
ALDERU
MCKENZIE
D
V
MCKENZIE
V
I
E
W
E
T
R
CENTENNIAL
HILLS CREEK
C
THURSTON21ST
6TH2NDOLD MOHAWK58THHARLOW
WEYERHAEUSER
UPPER CAMP CREEK
10THOLYMPIC
AGATEBOOTH KELLY
15TH
BELTLINE
ONYXCH
A
D
70THDONALDCRESCENT
G
69TH66TH9THWALLACE CREEK
40THDELTA 71STSKYHIGH
GATEWAYDILLARDHARRISSEAVEY LOOPKELLYAMAZON YOLANDA
K
14TH19TH
CEDAR FLATDAISY
46TH
IVY
43RD
SPRING30THPOTTERHW
Y
5
8WATERCAL YOUNGNORKENZIE
3RD
54THAYRES
ARMITAGEASPEN29TH
BRAND S
FAIRVIEW
BIKE
P
A
T
H 20THFRANKLIN67TH36THEDENVALE
DAY
I
S
L
A
N
D
H
RIVERVIEW38TH 72NDPATTERSONHIGH BAN
K
S
WILLAMETTEDEBRA7
9
T
H
13TH 56THHOLLY
32ND
HWY 99S33RDP
H
E
A
S
A
N
T
27THTABORMOSS
LAIRDVILLARDARCADIAGILHAM39THFORESTUNIVERSITY
RIDGEWAYFERRYHARVEST22ND
OWL 1STDORRISPIONEER PARKWAY EAST
SORREL CALVINRAINBOW48THCENTERPIONEER PARKWAY WEST37THR
O
A
N
BLOOMBERG 35THFOX HOLLOW LAURA18TH17TH4TH
HOYAPRESCOTTMAIA7TH
PR
I
V
A
T
EGLENWOOD WORTH
HAYDEN BRIDGE
WILLAKENZIE
QUINALT
LAKEVIEW
M J CH
A
S
E
OREGON
VAN
LAW
KICKBUSCHDEVON
CHEROKEECOUNTY FARMPARKWAYSHELLEY
34TH8TH
LE
O
H
A
R
R
I
S
OAKSYLVANPEARL55TH31STORCHARDFLORAL HILL44THOAKWAYCEN
T
R
A
L 52ND53RDAUGUSTALAUREL HILLFAIRMOUNTINTERNATIONAL
BAKERHILLSIDEBIRCHHEATHERGEM
S
T
O
N
E
FRANK PARR
ISH
GONYEABOND WALTON11THC
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
JU
D
K
I
N
S
CARMEL
KINSROW
LINDADOUGLAS
H
IG
H
R R B
A
K
E
R
BARDELL
BAILEY
DALE
NUGGETMARKET16THMT B
AL
D
Y
EM
E
R
A
L
D
ANDERSONKI
M
B
E
R
L
YELINOR
MIL
L 23RD49
T
H INLANDSUMMITPRIVATE
RDMOUNTAINGATEGARDENHARBORSHAS
T
A MANORFAIRWAY68THROCKY
DERYBESTTULIPREDWOOD WEAVER26TH41ST VILLAASH
57THCHERRYWAVERLYSTAPP
47TH MATTCOUNTRYGAYLILY
FIRLANDKINCA
ID MAHOGANYMARTIN
LUTHER
K
ING
J
LOCHAVENBAR MMINDA
REGENCY
DONLARKWOODJEPPESEN ACRES
BREWER
RUSTICPARKERRANDALL
PANORAMAJ
AS
PE
R
LOW
E
L
L
24TH
MCVAYMETOLIUSSARAH25THSNELLING
E
L
KCLUB SUNSETI
-5
ONRAMP
SEAVEY
CORUM
MISSYY
VERA
WALNUTBEVERLYSNELLSPYGLASS
HW
Y
9
9FIRCREST
WOODLANE
JUNE LUPEPALOMINOJANUS
TIMBERORIOLEOLD COBURGOXBOWMEADOW VIEWNORTH
GOSSLERGAME FARM
ON RAMP
MT VERNON
DAPPLE
BOB STRAUB
HIG
H
R
A
N
C
H
JESSICA
RICHLANDSKYLINE MITTEN
KINNEY
COLLEGE VIEWSANDPORTLAND 61STMENLO
LARCH
MARTINIQUE
45THPLEASANT ALDER BRANCHMALLARD
LINDALE
BARBER ERMI BEECLEARWATER
ELANCO
KATHRYN
ALDENVICTORIAN51STCARD
I
N
A
L
W
POLTAVACARTERV
A
L
H
A
L
L
A
FOREST RIDGEWILLONA
50TH I-5 OFFRAMPOL
D
D
I
L
L
A
R
D
5
9
T
H
FORSYTHIA
CAPITAL
RAMBLING
BROOKLYNEAST
OF E
DEN
CH
E
S
H
I
R
E
SHARON
MARBOSCAGE65THWILDISHISLAND
ASTERMOHAWKLEIGHASCOTDEADMOND FERRY
SARATOGAKNOB HILLEGGECHARLEYKELLOGG
COVEYAR
M
I
T
A
G
E
P
A
R
K
SCOTT
ETHAN
OAKDALE SEWARD
WHITEAKERPANDALINDEN
COU
N
T
R
Y
C
L
U
B
LOOPSALLY
VAN NESSMA
T
T
H
EW
S LAURELCOLETAMARACKOTTO
ALLEN
BUFORD PARKL
A
R
I
A
T SHERATONCAMEOADKINSVI
N
E
M
A
P
L
E
FIRTH
EASTWAYPRESIDENTBERKSHIREFAIR OAKSDORNOCH75THHAZELNUTTWIN BUTTES
MILLRACE
INGLEWOOD
KRUSE
PERIWI
N
KL
E
DIXIE
KINTZLEYPI
N
T
O BALDY V
IEW
MA
R
T
I
N BRISTOLSOUTH
W
O
O
D
ANTIGUA
MARCI
LAWNRIDGE
BARBADOS
SCOTTS GLEN
NORTHRIDGE ELLINGTONOLD ORCHARD
FAWNLOMOND
DRUMMONDRAYNERFLAMINGO
GREEN ACRES
NIXONLAMAR
CARUTHERSSPORTSCHERYLVIRGINIAMUSKETSUSSEXVAN DUYNMYERS
MAHLON OAKSHIRE
MCCUMBERBILLINGSSHILOHPARK
MARIE
KEITH
MISSISSIPPIELDON SCHAFERSANDYOSPREYMANSFIELD
JACOB
IRISAMBLESIDE
BOWENEASYWESTER
LYDICK
POSTAL
REGENT
EL ROBLE
E
LY
S
IUM
MIRROR POND
GREENVALE
ACACIA
ROWANCRIMSON
NICHOLASDUKE
UNION
WO
O
D
S
O
N
FIRWOOD
MANZANITAPINYONSUZANNE
EVERGLADELORD BYRONNORWOODFILBERTCOLONIAL
CAMELLIA
NE
W
M
A
N
MA
L
A
B
A
R
COMMONSSHADOW VIEWCUMBERLANDLEVELFORRESTERCOLUMBIALOCHROLAND
CORYDONVITUSGLACI
E
RSATREINDUSTRIAL60TH62ND
KINGSWOODELWING
SEQUOIA
DEPUE
RA
N
C
H WHITSELLMOON MOUNTAINLONG RIDGE63RDPIERCEMARTINGALERIVER KNOL
LHAMMOCK
FRO
N
T
I
E
R
LARKSPUR
OA
KM
O
N
T
COTTONWOOD
FIR COVE
STELLARQUEBECTANDY TURN SHENANDOAHPINEROCK
OAK
P
O
I
N
TFLINTLOCK
FERNHILLFOX MEADOWGRAYSTONEUPLANDTERRESA
HARMON
RIVERBEND
CHESAPEAKEHICKORY
CHEEK
AARON
SAINT KITTS
CREST
AVENGALE
12TH
BEECHSTEPHENSESSEXSWEARINGENDO
U
T
H
I
T
HARTMANCLEAR VUEWATERBROOKSHADY
MONTER
E
Y
KIRKTARPON
PRIVA
T
E
R
O
A
DWOODSIDE
MIAMIMICA
MIRAMAR VALLEY FORGEGRAND VISTABOGARTMOSES PASS
CRESS CREEK
64THLILAC
LEOTA
SENECATOMAHAWK
ROSE
BLUEBELLE 73RDRIDGLEYTALON
ALCONAKINGS NORTHDUMASPIO
N
E
E
R
PINECRESTQUARTZ
NELSON
COLLINSSAINT
T
H
O
M
A
S
NOBCHULA VISTAERINWINGATE
SWE
E
T
B
R
I
A
R CONCORDGEM
HORACE
JOHNS
O
N LOCUSTEDIE
BL
A
C
K
C
A
N
Y
O
N
SMITH
S
T
A
N
D
R
EW
S
PUMICEWOODCREST 74THCEDAR
W
O
O
D
SHAS
T
A
VI
E
W
DAPHNE
DUBENS
DOGWOODSKYLINE
P
A
R
K ERMAMOUN
T
A
I
N
DRIVE
W
A
Y
HOMESTEADFERNSPRAGUE
NORBERT
CUSTOMA
L
P
I
N
EMCMILLAN EL CENTRO
OPPORTUNITY
PINEDALE
LONGVIEW
TURNBULL
HENDERSONROCKY ROAD
BROADWAY
ORCHID
PI
N
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
HATHAWAY
PRASAD
ELLIOTBRADLEY RUBYLEXINGTONPERIDOT
MALLORY
DON JUAN
WALLA
C
E
BEAVER
WATER MARK
RIDGE
FOXBORO PARKLANEFUCHSIAMARQUET
GARDEN VALLEYSPRINGDALE
RODNEYQUEENSHACK
A
M
O
R
E KENTWOODMARANATHACABRIOLEEL
D
E
R
B
E
R
R
Y
KEELER
36TH2NDB
I
K
E
P
A
T
H
ASTER
L
48TH 38THKINCAIDI-5
ONRAMP
36TH
I
43RDOLYMPIC
E
I
23RD
ASTER
40TH36THBIKE PATH70THPORTLAND43RD51ST56TH25TH 26TH19TH CEN
TRA
L
21ST 49TH30T
H PRIVATEF
FERRYL
B
CMILL F
PRIVATE U
F
BUFORD PARK41ST 53RDD
8TH 12TH32ND15THD
19TH 24THPRIVATEHIGHE
KINCAID12THPEARLWATER17TH9TH11TH 11THDAISY4TH67TH
ALDER18TH
T
35TH EMERALDB
C 37THHWY 99
V
21STPEARL PRIVATE30TH
KIMBERLYOAK26TH
B
PRIVATE
MCVAY16TH
18TH
39TH
20TH
53RD
6TH
A32NDPRIVATE32ND
47THHOLLY
E
17TH44THG
D
UNIVERSITYB
PRIVATE
J
SPRING 38THAGATEPRIVATE14TH34TH
ASTER8TH
I
-5
ONRAMP
PRIV
A
T
E
E
39TH4TH 20TH16TH38TH 21STD 72NDCENTENNIAL SPORTS2NDLAURA26TH
12TH I-5 ONRAMPE
PRIVATE 34THB
OAKOAKALDER14TH
CMILL
41STD18TH
39THOAK24TH 40TH23RD
E
E
FORSYTHIA22NDM
C
PRIVATE
25TH 16TH37THA
OAK3RD19THJASPER
B
I
PRIVATEB
F38TH
40THA
CENTRALHIGHOAKC
POTTERPARKER
SHASTA18TH 1ST25TH 40THMILLMCMILLAN11THWILLONA
11TH 6THFERRYS
22ND
V
S
44THJ
8TH67THAGA
R
D
E
N
PATTERSONB
18TH
19TH PRIVATE8TH 63RDDOG
W
O
O
D
KINCAIDHAYDEN BRIDGE
33RD
35TH
GLACIER
BIKE PATH 8TH39TH
26TH 18TH57THPRIVATE
DONPOTTER73RDF22ND
DORRIS
2ND
PRIVATE
7TH6THPRIVATE
PRIVATE
PRIVATE23RD16THF 64TH32ND39THPRIVATEEMERALDCFERRY 46TH22ND
PRIVATE55THHIGHE
38THN
ALDERR
PRIVATE
35
T
H
D
34TH
A 70TH42ND34TH
G
39TH
A
13TH
22NDOAKM
65THM
10TH
H
ALDERL
53RD 66THA
37TH
PLEASANT
C
R
H
44TH 71STPRIVATE
R
D
52NDPRIVATEOLYMPICPRIVATE
JASPER20TH25TH32NDHIGH58THPRIVATE RD
PRIVATE
19TH
29TH 34THONYXMARTIN LUTHER KING J
C
F31ST
47TH15TH
29TH 72NDHENDERSON4THPRIVATE 32NDA 26THE
A
38TH HILYARDI-5
O
F
F
R
A
M
P
OAK19THD32ND8TH62ND
21STPRIVATE 51ST28TH70TH31ST
PRIVATE R
D
PRIVATEB
PRIVATE5THBIKE PATH
INDUSTRIAL
PRIVATE
35THOAK
43RD
BIKE PATH
KINCAIDPRIVATE
C
EMERALDI-5E17TH
ONYXPRIVATE10TH
8TH
F
E
32ND
J
G
BARBER
SUMMIT 54THI
MILLE
57TH52ND69TH20TH
I-5 OFFRAMP BIKE PATHQUINALTPRIVATE
UNIVERSITYPARK
HARRISB
34TH 17THD16TH
17TH
39TH
PRIVATE
R
O
A
D
E7THBIK
E
P
A
T
H
OTTO
JANUS
20THF17TH
MILL69TH23RD
11TH
IVYOAK 72ND39THJ
2ND 18TH6THMARCI
6
6THWALNUT
36TH
QUINALT
1ST22NDPRIVATE
FRANK
L
I
N
AMAZOND
7TH
A
G
20TH
G1ST 52ND14TH 37TH20TH
A
69TH37TH ONYXASTER
FERRY43RD8TH34THC
16TH
PRIVATE5TH
T
37THB
B
FERRY68THTABOR20THB
17TH
G
ALDERFN 38TH63RD33RDPRIVATE19THD
42NDSUNS
ET
PRIVATE
PRIVATEPRIVATEA 34TH10TH71ST3RD38THPRIV
A
T
E
PRIVATE
MILL53RDAMAZON29TH
PRIVAT
E
F
57TH31ST52ND34TH18TH 58THBIK
E
P
A
T
H
38TH
E
P
R
I
V
A
T
E 44THMILL37THGAME FARM65TH29TH
M
B
SPRING
30TH 37TH15TH28TH
D
56THPRIVATE
24TH
C
ALDERA
HBIKE PATH57THA
PRIVATE
18TH 43RD53RDMILLMap 9: Study Area Summaries
City of Springfield, Oregon
ECONorthwest. December 2008
¯0 5,0002,500
Feet
100 ac
50 ac
20 ac
10 ac
5 ac
RF = 1:25,000
Legend
UGB Buffer - 1 Mile Increments
Metro Plan Boundary
Urban Growth Boundary
Lane Slopes 25% and greater
Lane County NWI
Riparian Resource Areas
Floodway
Flood plain
Hydric Soils
Size of Tax Lots
0-5 acres
5-10 acres
10-20 acres
20-50 acres
50 acres or larger
Area 1:
367 acres
15 tax lots
Area 2:
548 acres
66 tax lots
Area 3:
534 acres
8 tax lots
Area 4:
534 acres
84 tax lots
Area 5:
464 acres
41 tax lots
Area 6:
827 acres
92 tax lots
Area 7:
757 acres
84 tax lots
Area 9/10:
1,791 acres
399 tax lots
Area 8:
255 acres
21 tax lots
Note: boundares are provisional and
subject to change. Map identifies
opportunity sites, but does not preclude l
ands outside the identified areas
from consideration.
Attachment 3-19
Input on Employment Opportunity Sites January 15, 2009 Page 4
1. NORTH GATEWAY AREA
The TAC identified this area as a potential expansion area for employment
Opportunities Constraints
Wastewater:
Existing sewer is near
Transportation:
Access from farm roads
Access around 1-5 from under/over pass
Good access to LTD
Characteristics:
Potentially 50+ acre site(s)
Located near I-5 interchange
Relatively flat
Surrounding uses compatible with
warehousing and industrial uses
Visible from I-5 or arterial streets
Adjacent to large developed center at
Gateway
Wastewater:
May require wastewater pump station (or
more infrastructure) and may cost more
than other areas, depending on the
intensity and type of uses
Stormwater:
No stormwater system; presence of
wetlands, riparian areas, and natural
resources
Transportation:
No internal road network
Limited capacity on local streets at I-5
interchange, which may limit
development density, and may require
work on Beltline and Gateway roads
Other:
Portions of the site are in the floodplain
and floodway
Stakeholder comments:
Concern about development potential in
the floodplain and limitations from Goal
5 land and in riparian areas
Concern about cumulative impact of
building in the floodplain. Will this
cause more flooding, especially a concern
for the Hospital site.
Attachment 3-20
Input on Employment Opportunity Sites January 15, 2009 Page 5
2. HAYDEN BRIDGE AREA
The TAC identified this area as a potential expansion area for residential uses
Opportunities Constraints
Transportation:
Access from Marcola Road
Existing bridge in place
Access to I-5 via Hwy 126
Characteristics:
Sites 5+ acres
Access to arterial streets
Slopes less than 15%
Surrounding uses are compatible with
office, retail, and other service uses
Visible from arterial or collector streets
Stakeholder comments:
Potential for residential development
Possibly easier to service than other areas
Wastewater:
Will require pumping across river, then
potential gravity flow and may cost
more than other areas
Would need to expand capacity on
existing sewer line in Marcola Rd.
Transportation
Previous ODOT study showed need for
expansion at the Hwy 126 and 42nd
Street interchange, not accounting for
possible UGB expansion in this area
Tendancy for traffic to backup at the rail
crossing
Stormwater:
No developed system
Stormwater discharge may be
constrained because the EWEB’s water
intake is near
Other:
Some floodplain / floodway and steep
slopes
Significant potential wetland issues
The area of marginal land may have
CC&R that restricts land divisions,
precluding more intense development
Stakeholder comments:
Geography seems confining for
commercial/industrial uses
Concern about potential for wetlands
and development potential in wetlands
Attachment 3-21
Input on Employment Opportunity Sites January 15, 2009 Page 6
3. NORTH SPRINGFIELD HIGHWAY AREA
Opportunities Constraints
Transportation:
Potential access to Hwy 126 and High
Banks Road
ODOT in planning stages for
improvements at 52nd Street and Main
Street, which may make planning for
additional capacity easier
Characteristics:
Sites 5+ acres
Type of street access
Slopes less than 15%
Surrounding uses are compatible with
industrial, office, retail, and other service
uses
Other:
Potentially a good location for industrial
development
Wastewater:
May require a pump station for some
areas – mostly gravity flow
Transportation
ODOT in planning stages for
improvements at 52nd Street and Main
Street but UGB expansion would require
additional improvements beyond what is
currently under consideration
Stormwater:
Presence of wetlands, riparian areas and
natural resources areas.
Must maintain natural drainage system in
Cedar Creek.
Other:
Some floodplain / floodway
FEMA is re-mapping the floodplain in
this area, with results due in late January
2009
Stakeholder comments:
Cedar Creek receives stormwater for
parts at UGB. May be at capacity for
stormwater.
Concern about development potential in
the floodplain
Concern that the floodplain shown on
the maps is inaccurate because the 1996
flood covered more area than shown
SUB has wells in this area, which may
restrict development
Attachment 3-22
Input on Employment Opportunity Sites January 15, 2009 Page 7
4. FAR EAST SPRINGFIELD AREA
The TAC identified this area as a potential expansion area for residential uses
Opportunities Constraints
Transportation:
Access from E. Main Street
Characteristics:
Sites 5+ acres
Access to arterial streets
Areas with slopes less than 15%
Surrounding uses are compatible with
office, retail, and other service uses
Visible from arterial or collector streets
Stakeholder comments:
Potential for residential development
Lesser quality of soils on south side,
which may be an opportunity
Wastewater:
May require pumping station
Transportation
UGB expansion may require expansion
of Hwy 126
Stormwater:
Needs planning and infrastructure
Other:
Some steep slopes
Stakeholder comments:
Cedar Creek receives stormwater for
parts at UGB. May be at capacity for
stormwater.
Steep slopes may limit development
density
Attachment 3-23
Input on Employment Opportunity Sites January 15, 2009 Page 8
5. WALLACE CREEK ROAD AREA
The TAC identified this area as a potential expansion area for residential uses
Opportunities Constraints
Transportation:
Access from Jasper Rd.
Weyerhaeuser Haul Rd may make site
access easier and provide connection to
other roads (Jasper Rd and the Bob
Straub Parkway)
Other:
Not a lot of floodplain
Characteristics:
Potentially 50+ acre site(s)
Type of street access
Slopes less than 15%
Surrounding uses are compatible with
industrial, office, retail, and other service
uses
Stakeholder comments:
Potential to connect to Highway 58,
which may provide large sites for
commercial and industrial uses
Potential for large industrial site on the
edge of Jasper, which may be an
opportunity for an industrial site
The slopes in part of the area may be a
good opportunity for residential
development
Wastewater:
May need a pump station
Will need to extend wastewater system
from where it will end at Bob Straub
Parkway
Stormwater:
Needs planning and infrastructure
Transportation:
Existing bridge would likely need
upgrade
May require improvements to Jasper
Road and the intersection of Jasper Rd
and Hwy 58
Stakeholder comments:
Willamette Greenway may be a
constraint that reduces development
density
Attachment 3-24
Input on Employment Opportunity Sites January 15, 2009 Page 9
6. WEST JASPER/JASPER BRIDGE AREA
Opportunities Constraints
Transportation:
Access from Jasper Rd.
Other:
Large portion of rural residential /
commercial land
Characteristics:
Potentially 50+ acre site(s)
Type of street access
Slopes less than 15%
Surrounding uses are compatible with
industrial, office, retail, and other service
uses
Wastewater:
Will require pump station
Would need to get wastewater system
across the river
Transportation
May require improvements to the
intersection of Jasper Rd and Hwy 58
Stormwater:
Needs planning and infrastructure
Other:
Large portion of rural residential /
commercial land
River crossings make the area more
complex to service and may not be
appropriate for employment uses
Stakeholder comments:
Flooding along Willamette Greenway
may constrain development
Attachment 3-25
Input on Employment Opportunity Sites January 15, 2009 Page 10
7. CLEARWATER AREA
The TAC identified this area as a potential expansion area for residential uses
Opportunities Constraints
Wastewater:
Potential gravity flow; existing sewer is
close; planned sewer extension along
Jasper Rd
Transportation:
Access from Jasper Rd.
Other:
Large amount of land not in floodplain
Characteristics:
Sites 5+ acres
Access to collector and neighborhood
streets
Slopes less than 15%
Stakeholder comments:
School district owns land in area
Potential for residential development but
commercial potential is limited to small
scale commercial, such as neighborhood
commercial
Stormwater:
Need flood study; need planning and
infrastructure
Transportation:
Most transportation impacts would be
on local streets
May need grade-separated railroad
crossing
Other:
Some land in the floodplain
Stakeholder comments:
Concern about development potential in
the floodplain
Need to build around natural flood
channels
Willamette Greenway may be a
constraint that reduces development
density
SUB’s water treatment facility to the
western edge of site, which may not
impact development
Attachment 3-26
Input on Employment Opportunity Sites January 15, 2009 Page 11
8. SOUTH OF MILL RACE AREA
Opportunities Constraints
Wastewater:
Existing sewer is relatively close
Other:
Mostly publicly owned land
Characteristics:
Sites 5+ acres
Access to collector and neighborhood
streets
Slopes less than 15%
Surrounding uses are compatible with
office, retail, and other service uses
Stakeholder comments:
Some industrial uses may be compatible
in this area
This site seems more integrated into the
existing urban context of Springfield
There is a lot of land in public
ownership, which opportunities for
public over site of a master planning
process
Wastewater:
May require a pumping station
Stormwater:
Need flood study; need planning and
infrastructure
Limited discharge opportunities
Transportation:
Access to S. 28th St. & S. M St.
Need to bridge the Mill Race
Would need to improve access to the site
from the rest of the City
Water
Existing SUB well fields in place
Stakeholder comments:
Existing SUB well fields in place, which
may restrict development
Railroad crossing creates a barrier at 28th
Street
Attachment 3-27
Input on Employment Opportunity Sites January 15, 2009 Page 12
9. SEAVEY LOOP AND GOSHEN AREA
The TAC identified this area as a potential expansion area for employment
Opportunities Constraints
Wastewater:
Glenwood has sewer
Potential gravity flow area
Transportation:
Opportunities for rail access
Characteristics:
Potentially 50+ acre site(s)
Located near I-5 interchange
Relatively flat
Surrounding uses compatible with
warehousing, industrial, office, and other
service uses
Other:
Availability for large sites
Opportunities for parkland at river
confluence area
Opportunity for denser industrial
development
Commercial firms have expressed
interest in this area
May meet regional land needs
Wildish is in the process of doing a
floodplain analysis
Stakeholder comments:
There are gravel pits in this area, which
provides development opportunities
This area has potential for development
into an area with similar employment
value as Gateway
Look for opportunities around the
Highway 58 interchange for big industrial
sites, possibly west of I-5
Wastewater:
Need sewer extension from Glenwood
Will need a pump station
Stormwater:
Needs flood study
Needs planning and infrastructure
Limited discharge opportunities
Transportation:
Limited capacity at I-5/30th Street
interchange, which will be costly
Need for above-grade rail crossing and
river crossing
Water:
No existing water service
Other:
Development in this area would be more
financially feasible if Eugene were
planning to grow into the LCC basin
over the planning period.
School capacity may be limited
Stakeholder comments:
The cost of upgrading the I-5
Interchange may be prohibitively high
Planning in this area should be done to
protect Mt. Pisgah
High quality agriculture soils
Attachment 3-28
1 | Public Facilities Comparision – UGB Alternatives Analysis Springfield Urban Growth Boundary Location Alternatives Analysis Goal 14 Boundary Location Factor 2: Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services OAR 660‐024‐0060 requires cities conduct an “Alternatives Analysis” when considering a UGB amendment. The alternatives analysis (the part of the UGB review process that we are now moving into) requires all lands adjacent to the existing UGB be reviewed (e.g., a ring around the UGB). Relevant sections of OAR 660‐024‐0060 specify the following: (1) When considering a UGB amendment, a local government must determine which land to add by evaluating alternative boundary locations. This determination must be consistent with the priority of land specified in ORS 197.298 and the boundary location factors of Goal 14, as follows: (a) Beginning with the highest priority of land available, a local government must determine which land in that priority is suitable to accommodate the need deficiency determined under 660‐024‐0050. (b) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency, a local government must apply the location factors of Goal 14 to choose which land in that priority to include in the UGB. (c) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category is not adequate to satisfy the identified need deficiency, a local government must determine which land in the next priority is suitable to accommodate the remaining need, and proceed using the same method specified in subsections (a) and (b) of this section until the land need is accommodated. (d) Notwithstanding subsection (a) through (c) of this section, a local government may consider land of lower priority as specified in ORS 197.298(3). (e) For purposes of this rule, the determination of suitable land to accommodate land needs must include consideration of any suitability characteristics specified under section (5) of this rule, as well as other provisions of law applicable in determining whether land is buildable or suitable. (3) The boundary location factors of Goal 14 are not independent criteria. When the factors are applied to compare alternative boundary locations and to determine the UGB location, a local government must show that all the factors were considered and balanced. (4) In determining alternative land for evaluation under ORS 197.298, "land adjacent to the UGB" is not limited to those lots or parcels that abut the UGB, but also includes land in the vicinity of the UGB that has a reasonable potential to satisfy the identified need deficiency. (5) If a local government has specified characteristics such as parcel size, topography, or proximity that are necessary for land to be suitable for an identified need, the local government may limit its consideration to land that has the specified characteristics when it conducts the boundary location alternatives analysis and applies ORS 197.298. (6) The adopted findings for UGB adoption or amendment must describe or map all of the alternative areas evaluated in the boundary location alternatives analysis. If the analysis involves more than one parcel or area within a particular priority category in ORS 197.298 for which circumstances are the same, these parcels or areas may be considered and evaluated as a single group. (7) For purposes of Goal 14 Boundary Location Factor 2, "public facilities and services" means water, sanitary sewer, storm water management, and transportation facilities. Attachment 3-29
2 | Public Facilities Comparision – UGB Alternatives Analysis (8) The Goal 14 boundary location determination requires evaluation and comparison of the relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of alternative UGB expansion areas with respect to the provision of public facilities and services needed to urbanize alternative boundary locations. This evaluation and comparison must be conducted in coordination with service providers, including the Oregon Department of Transportation with regard to impacts on the state transportation system. "Coordination" includes timely notice to service providers and the consideration of evaluation methodologies recommended by service providers. The evaluation and comparison must include: (a) The impacts to existing water, sanitary sewer, storm water and transportation facilities that serve nearby areas already inside the UGB; (b) The capacity of existing public facilities and services to serve areas already inside the UGB as well as areas proposed for addition to the UGB; and (c) The need for new transportation facilities, such as highways and other roadways, interchanges, arterials and collectors, additional travel lanes, other major improvements on existing roadways and, for urban areas of 25,000 or more, the provision of public transit service. The Springfield Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) concludes the City will need to add employment sites to the UGB to meet its economic development objectives. Chapter 5 of the EOA identifies a need for larger sites (>5 acres), and some very large sites (three sites >50 acres). Chapter 5 of the EOA also identifies site characteristics that are specific to different industries. Because of the need for larger sites, and the more specific siting characteristics, planners often start the alternatives analysis by identifying potential employment sites. In late 2008 and early 2009 the CIBL CAC and TAC identified and potential employment opportunity areas for further study. 1. North Gateway Area 2. Hayden Bridge Area 3. North Springfield Highway Area 4. Far East Springfield Area 5. Wallis Creek Road Area 6. West Jasper/Jasper Bridge Area 7. Clearwater Area 8. South of Mill Race Area 9/10 Seavey Loop Area to Goshen Area Attachment 3-30
3 | Public Facilities Comparision – UGB Alternatives Analysis Public Services Comparison Service providers were asked to perform a high‐level comparative analysis of the study areas to determine ease/difficulty of providing service. The service providers submitted matrices that assigned values 1‐5 with 1 = EASY 3= MEDIUM DIFFICULT 5= DIFFICULT Staff compiled the matrices into one matrix. Green = 1 EASIER Light Green = 2 MODERATE Yellow = 3 MEDIUM HIGH Orange = 4 MEDIUM ‐ HIGH DIFFICULTY Red = 5 MOST DIFFICULT Study Area Willamalane Parks & Recreation Willamalane Comments Fire and Life Safety Ranking Fire and Life Safety Comments Transportation Systems Stormwater Systems WastewaterSystems WaterSystems 1. North Gateway Area (Flood Plain Only ‐ Flood Way Removed) Relatively far from Park Services Center and Community Recreation Center, but good access. Southernmost area can be served only if direct road network connecting from International, Maple Island or Sportsway is built. Actual Travel time study will be necessary to verify model 2. Hayden Bridge Area Relatively far from Park Services Center and Community Recreation Center. Relatively close to existing and planned parks. A portion of this site can be served under current deployment. A full adoption of this site will require relocation or addition of a fire station 3. North Springfield Highway Area Relatively close to Park Services Center and Community Recreation Center. Somewhat distant from existing parks. Good access. This site can be served by current deployment. The proposed relocation of FS 14 to 57th and Bob Straub parkway will not negatively impact level of service. Attachment 3-31
4 | Public Facilities Comparision – UGB Alternatives Analysis 4. Far East Springfield Area Willamalane Ranking Willamalane Comments Far from Park Services Center and Community Recreation Center. Concern re. availability of land suitable for park development. Fire and Life Safety Ranking Fire and LifeSafety Comments At edge of coverage area, service depends on street config Transportation Systems Stormwater Systems WastewaterSystems WaterSystems 5. Wallis Creek Road Area Concept 1 & 2 Concepts 1 & 2 Far from Park Services Center, Community Recreation Center, and existing parks. Too small. Will require an additional fire station depending on the street configuration. 5. Wallis Creek Road Area Concept 3 Far from Park Services Center, Community Recreation Center, and existing parks, but good access. 6. West Jasper/Jasper Bridge Area Far from Park Services Center, Community Recreation Center, and existing parks. Poor access. Did not rank 7. Clearwater Area Close to Park Services Center, Community Recreation Center, and existing parks. Please include Clearwater Park. Northernmost areas can be served by existing Fire department deployment. Southern areas may be served at level 1 depending on street configuration and verified by actual drive time study. North 500 acres North South 500 acres South Attachment 3-32
5 | Public Facilities Comparision – UGB Alternatives Analysis 8. South of Mill Race Area Willamalane Ranking Willamalane Comments Relatively close to Park Services Center and Community Recreation Center, existing and planned parks. Already within District boundaries. Fire and Life Safety Ranking Fire and Life Safety Comments Northernmost areas can be served by existing Fire department deployment. Southern areas may be served at level 1 depending on street configuration Transportation Systems Stormwater Systems WastewaterSystems WaterSystems 9. I‐5 South /Seavey Loop Area – Concept 1 Far from Park Services Center and Community Recreation Center, existing and planned parks (although close to Buford). Large amount of wetlands and floodplain, limiting opportunities for active park development. This site is significantlyremoved from Fire Department ability to serve and will require a fire station to be built and staffed. North (Gravity Flow) South (Pump Station) 9. I‐5 South /Seavey Loop Area – Concepts 2 & 3 Far from Park Services Center and Community Recreation Center, existing and planned parks (although close to Buford). Attachment 3-33
Fire Department Assessment: Buildable Lands Inventory of the UGB AreasEasy: 1 ‐ Current Urban Level of Service can be provided utilizing existing deployment 2‐ Current Urban Level of Service can be provided but will require possible redeployment of apparatus and/or additional staffModerate: 3‐ Can serve but will require relocation of existing station(s) to provide urban level of service 4‐ Can serve but will require relocation of existing station(s) and additional apparatus and/or staffDifficult: 5‐ Can serve by adding additional station, additional staff, additional apparatus to current deployment schemeAssumption: Score in Blue (top row) is current fire department deployment (5 station, 22 min. Operations Division manning + 4 Deputy Fire Score in Red is configuration with proposed relocation of Stn 14 to 57th x Bob Straub Pkwy Area#1 North Gateway (Flood Plain Only ‐ Flood Way Removed) #2 Hayden Bridge#3 North Springfield Highway#4 Far East Springfield#5 Wallace Creek Road#7 Clearwater #8 South of Millrace#9/10 Seavy Loop and Goshen Area#11 *Jasper Natron existing UGB to Brand S Rd Area#12 *Glenwood ‐west sideScore 13 or 51 15115 3 3Score 1 3 or 51 15115 3 3Comment1 ‐ Southernmost area can be served only if direct road network connecting from International, Maple Island or Sportsway is built. Actual Travel time study will be necessary to verify model 3 ‐ if majority of area in concept is annexed.A portion of this site can be served under current deployment. A full adoption of this site will require relocation or addition of a fire station1 (1). This site can be served by current deployment. The proposed relocation of FS 14 to 57th and Bob Straub parbkway will not negatively impact level of service.1. At edge of coverage area, service depends on street config5. Will require an additional fire station depending on the street configuration.1. Northernmost areas can be served by existing Fire department deployment. Southern areas may be served at level 1 depending on street configuration and verified by actual drive time study.1. Northernmost areas can be served by existing Fire department deployment. Southern areas may be served at level 1 depending on street configuration5 (5)This site is significantly removed from Fire Department ability to serve and will require a fire station to be built and staffed.3 (3)This site is already in the current City UGB. The existing development is at the extreme limit of Fire Department ability to serve at city standard. Additional development within the existing Jasper Natron UGB to the South of Pebble Lane will require relocation of Fire Station 14 This site is already in the current UGB with wetstern and southern non‐annexed portions unable to be served to city standards utilizing current deployment.Attachment 3-34
1‐ EASY 3‐ MODERATE 5‐ DIFFICULT #1 North Gateway (Flood Plain Only‐Flood Way Removed) #2 Hayden Bridge #3 North Springfield Highway (Flood Plain Only‐Flood Way Removed) #4 Far East Springfield(200 Acres Only) #5 Wallace Creek Road (No Steep Slopes) #6 West Jasper/Jasper Bridge #7 Clearwater(Net‐Out Mill Race Buffer) #8 South of Mill Race (Mill Race Buffer Reduction & SUB Well Field Reduction) #9/10 Seavey Loop and Goshen Area WATER SUPPLY CONSIDERATIONS, BY SUB – JUNE 24, 2009 Arrera, Keeler, McKee, Miller Source 3 5 3 1 5 5 3 3 5 Storage 3 5 3 1 5 5 3 3 5 Transmission 5 5 3 1 5 5 5 1 5 Average 3.67 5 3 1 5 5 3.67 2.33 5 #4 – Area south of Main Street is more difficult for the higher elevations #7 – Providing fire protection flows would be difficult #8 – Source value is 5 for residential, 3 for light industrial, 1 for aggregate extraction Attachment 3-35
BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY OF THE (UGB) AREAS Those who attended meeting on Wednesday, June 3, 2009; Linda Pauly, Jeff Paschall, Matt Stouder, George Walker, Susie Smith, Len Goodwin, Tom Boyatt, Brian Conlon, Rhonda Rice, Ron Bittler, DeeDee Martin, & Ken Vogeney. 1‐ EASY 3‐ MODERATE 5‐ DIFFICULT #1 North Gateway (Flood Plain Only‐Flood Way Removed) #2 Hayden Bridge #3 North Springfield Highway (Flood Plain Only‐Flood Way Removed) #4 Far East Springfield(200 Acres Only) #5 Wallace Creek Road (No Steep Slopes) #6 West Jasper/Jasper Bridge #7 Clearwater(Net‐Out Mill Race Buffer) #8 South of Mill Race (Mill Race Buffer Reduction & SUB Well Field Reduction) #9/10 Seavey Loop and Goshen Area SEWER STORM TRANSPORTATION 1 1 5 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 5 1 5 1‐North/ 3‐South 1‐North/ 3‐South (Roughly 500 acres North and 500 acres South) 3 1 3 (Because of SUB’s Well Field and need for storm pipe through buffer area) 3 3‐North/ (Gravity Flow) 5‐South (Pump Station) 1 5 The three areas that the stake holders are most interested in are # 1 with 270.0 unconstrained acres, # 7 with 1,066.5 unconstrained acres, and #9/10 with 1284.2 unconstrained acres. Please see attachments 1, 2, and 3 with more information on these properties. (This information was given to me, DeeDee Martin, after the meeting on June 3, 2006.) Attachment 3-36
**DRAFT**BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY OF THE (UGB) AREAS**DRAFT** 1‐ EASY 3‐ MODERATE 5‐ DIFFICULT #1 North Gateway (Flood Plain Only‐Flood Way Removed) #2 Hayden Bridge #3 North Springfield Highway (Flood Plain Only‐Flood Way Removed) #4 Far East Springfield(200 Acres Only) #5 Wallace Creek Road (No Steep Slopes) #6 West Jasper/Jasper Bridge #7 Clearwater (Net‐Out Mill Race Buffer) (Roughly 500 acres North and 500 acres South) #8 South of Mill Race (Mill Race Buffer Reduction & SUB Well Field Reduction) #9/10 Seavey Loop and Goshen Area (1791 acres gross area) SEWER Cost Estimate Range* STORM Cost Estimate Range* TRANSPORTATION 1 $5M to $10M 1 $1M to $5M 5 5 $15M to $20M 5 $5M to $10M 3 1 $1M to $5M 1 $1M to $5M 1 1 $5M to $10M 3 $5M to $10M 1 1 $1M to $5M 1 $1M to $5M 3 5 >$20M 1 $5M to $10M 5 1‐North/ 3‐South North‐<$1M South‐$1M to $5M 1‐North/ 3‐South North‐$1M to $5M South‐$1M to $5M 3 1 $1M to $5M 3 (Because of SUB’s Well Field and need for storm pipe through buffer area) $1M to $5M 3 3‐North (Gravity Flow) $1M to $5M 5‐South (Pump Station) $1M to $5M 1 $1M to $5M 5 Cost Estimate Range* $15 to $20M $10M to $15M $5M to $10M $5 to $10M $5 to $10M $15M to $20M >$20M (RR Grade Separation @ S. 42nd or Mt. Vernon Rd) $5 to $10M >$20M (I‐5/30th Interchange; RR Grade Separation; Bridge over River) *1. 2009 Dollars 2. Right‐of‐way/Easement acquisition costs are not included Attachment 3-37
SuitableMap No. Area No. Area Name Acres Difficulty Cost Range* Difficulty Cost Range* Difficulty Cost Range* Difficulty Cost Range*6. ‐ Priority 1 Lands 9 Seavey Loop 56 3 $5M to $10M 1 $1M to $5M 5 $1M to $5M 9 $7M to $20M7. Concept 11N. Gateway 275 5 $15M to $20M 1 $1M to $5M 1 $5M to $10M7. Concept 18S. of Mill Race 130 3 $5M to $10M 3 $1M to $5M 1 $1M to $5M7. Concept 1 9 Seavey Loop 235 5 >20M 1 $1M to $5M 5 $1M to $5MConcept 1 Totals640 13 $40M to >$50M 5 $3M to $15M 7 $7M to $20M 25 $50M to >$85M9. Concept 23N. of 52nd 300 1 $5M to $10M 1 $1M to $5M 1 $1M to $5M9. Concept 28S. of Mill Race 250 3 $5M to $10M 3 $1M to $5M 1 $1M to $5M9. Concept 2 9 Seavey Loop 90 5 $15M to $20M 1 $1M to $5M 5 $1M to $5MConcept 2 Totals640 9 $25M to $40M 5 $3M to $15M 7 $3M to $15M 21 $31M to $70M11. Concept 31N. Gateway 275 5 $15M to $20M 1 $1M to $5M 1 $5M to $10M11. Concept 33N. of 52nd 275 1 $5M to $10M 1 $1M to $5M 1 $1M to $5M11. Concept 3 9 Seavey Loop 90 5 $15M to $20M 1 $1M to $5M 5 $1M to $5MConcept 3 Totals640 11 $35M to $50M 3 $3M to $15M 7 $7M to $20M 21 $45M to $85M*1. 2009 Dollars 2. Right‐of‐way/Easement acquisition costs are not included.NOTE: Total**DRAFT**Provision of Transportation, Stormwater, and Wastewater Service**DRAFT**UGB Expansion Areas Employment Lands OnlyCommercial/Industrial/Public ZoningCost estimates shown are to provide service to the respective map areas ‐ They do not include costs to provide the systems internal to that map area.TransportationStormwaterWastewatervoge2997:Verify w/ Linda12/11/09 by Ken VogeneyS:\PC ‐ Staff Reports\2010 Planning Commission\2010‐02‐17 Joint Public Hearing with lane County\RS DSD Springfiled Refinement Plan\Section F ‐ UGB Alternatives Analysis\Comparative Analysis Matrices\Vogeney UGB Expansion ‐ CIBL OnlAttachment 3-38
SPRINGFIELD UGB EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES
PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICEABILITY ANALYSIS
Site Projected Land UseAcres Serviceability Ranking1Comments
Area 1--North Gateway Emp 35 2
Relatively far from Park Services Center and Community
Recreation Center, but good access.
Area 2--Hayden Bridge2 Emp?3
Relatively far from Park Services Center and Community
Recreation Center. Relatively close to existing and planned
parks.
Area 3--N. of 52nd Ave. Emp 540 2
Relatively close to Park Services Center and Community
Recreation Center. Somewhat distant from existing parks.
Good access.
Area 4--East Springfield
Concept 1 Res 140 4
Far from Park Services Center and Community Recreation
Center. Concern re. availability of land suitable for park
development.
Area 4--East Springfield
Concepts 2 & 3 Res 60 4
Far from Park Services Center and Community Recreation
Center. Concern re. availability of land suitable for park
development.
Area 5--Wallace Creek
Concepts 1 & 2 Res 30 4
Far from Park Services Center, Community Recreation
Center, and existing parks. Too small.
Area 5--Wallace Creek
Concept 3 Res 135 3
Far from Park Services Center, Community Recreation
Center, and existing parks, but good access.
Area 6--West Jasper2 Emp?5
Far from Park Services Center, Community Recreation
Center, and existing parks. Poor access.
Area 7--Clearwater Lane
Concept 1 Res 300 1
Close to Park Services Center, Community Recreation
Center, and existing parks. Please include Clearwater Park.
Area 7--Clearwater Lane
Concept 2 Res 390 1
Close to Park Services Center, Community Recreation
Center, and existing parks. Please include Clearwater Park.
Area 7--Clearwater Lane
Concept 3 Res 150 1
Close to Park Services Center, Community Recreation
Center, and existing parks. Please include Clearwater Park.
WPRD SERVICEABILITY ANALYSIS PAGE 1 OF 2 8/3/2009
Attachment 3-39
Site Projected Land UseAcres Serviceability Ranking1Comments
Area 8-- S. of Mill Race
Concept 1 Emp 140 2
Relatively close to Park Services Center and Community
Recreation Center, existing and planned parks. Already
within District boundaries.
Area 8-- S. of Mill Race
Concept 2 Emp 350 2
Relatively close to Park Services Center and Community
Recreation Center, existing and planned parks. Already
within District boundaries.
Area 9--Seavey Loop
Concept 1 Emp 500 4
Far from Park Services Center and Community Recreation
Center, existing and planned parks (although close to
Buford). Large amount of wetlands and floodplain, limiting
opportunities for active park development.
Area 9--Seavey Loop
Concepts 2 & 3 Emp 260 3
Far from Park Services Center and Community Recreation
Center, existing and planned parks (although close to
Buford).
NOTES
1. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 = easy, 3 = moderate, and 5 = difficult.
2. Originally identifed as a potential employment site. Eliminated? Acres not stated.
WPRD SERVICEABILITY ANALYSIS PAGE 2 OF 2 8/3/2009
Attachment 3-40
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
PROPOSED SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
CONCEPTS
December 31, 2009
The attached maps illustrate three possible concepts for Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary. These
maps have been presented at public open houses throughout 2009.
PLEASE NOTE: In December 2009, the City amended the Springfield Residential
Land and Housing Needs Analysis. The residential lands needs determination
has been amended, as adopted by the Springfield City Council on December 7,
2009, thus the proposed UGB expansion for residential lands shown in the
attached concepts is no longer relevant. The attached maps were prepared
prior to the amendment and have not been updated as of December 31, 2009.
The proposed UGB expansion for employment lands shown in the attached
concepts remains relevant and will be the subject of future public hearings.
The Springfield and Lane County Commissioners will conduct public hearings
beginning in February 2010 and will be asked to select a preferred alternative
for Springfield’s UGB. Once the preferred alternative is selected, Springfield will
prepare detailed Alternatives Analysis findings, as outlined in the attached
documents.
Attachment 3-41